The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. Litolier Properties Private Limited
High Court
08 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. Litolier Properties Private Limited
Date of order
08 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. Litolier Properties Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Litolier Properties Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Pankaj R. Toprani with Ms.Kadambari Surve for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 8[th] August, 2011.
1.The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and n law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of CIT (A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of discounting charges on debentures written off amounting to Rs.1,10,23,600/- under Section 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?”
2.Similar orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 has been accepted by the Revenue. No case is made out to take a contrary view. Theappealis accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. Sayed, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.