Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumb...

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan