Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.reliance Communications & Infrastructure Limited

High Court 13 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.reliance Communications & Infrastructure Limited
Date of order
13 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.reliance Communications & Infrastructure Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, 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.

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.2609 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Reliance Communications & Infrastructure Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Abhay Ahuja for the appellant.Mr.B.G. Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Company for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 13[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) and restoring the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the quantum of expenses to be disallowed under Section 14A by adopting some reasonable method, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited v. DCIT (328 ITR 81) ?” 2.The Tribunal by the impugned order has restored the issue to the file of the assessing officer to pass a fresh order, keeping in view the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited V/s. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81. 3.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, 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