The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.amar Tea Limited
High Court
15 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.amar Tea Limited
Date of order
15 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.amar Tea Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATE : 15[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A)...
Decision: 3.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2094 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Amar Tea Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M Shah for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 15[th] February 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07,
following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration.
“a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of assessee's claim on advertisement and publicity expenditure of Rs.4,05,82,970/- as business expenditure even though the assessee had incurred this expenditure for the benefit for its sister concern, viz. M/s.Hasmukhrai & Co. ?law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of assessee's claim on advertisement and publicity expenditure of Rs.4,05,82,970/- as business expenditure even though the assessee had incurred this expenditure for the benefit for its sister concern, viz. M/s.Hasmukhrai & Co. ?
b)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.7,16,231/- made on account of shortage of tea of 8925 kgs ?”law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.7,16,231/- made on account of shortage of tea of 8925 kgs ?”
2.Counsel for the parties fairly state that in respect of the same respondent -assessee, an appeal filed by the Revenue for earlier assessment year being Income Tax Appeal No.806 of 2010 was not entertained by order dated 7[th] February 2011. For the reasons stated in the order dated 7[th ]February 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.806 of 2010, the proposed questions (a) and (b) are not being entertained.
3.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.
EaseValue