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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Rpg Life Sciences Limited

High Court 06 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Rpg Life Sciences Limited
Date of order
06 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Rpg Life Sciences Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: The first question is whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) admitting additional evidence.

Decision: 3.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.4148 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus RPG Life Sciences Limited..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.B.V. Jhaveri for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 6[th] December, 2010. 1.Two questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. The first question is whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) admitting additional evidence. In our opinion, the question as to whether additional evidence should be allowed or not is a question of fact and the decision to that effect does not give rise to any question of law. 2.The second question raised by the Revenue is, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was exclusively for the purposes of business. Perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that the CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that M/s.RPG Enterprises had actually rendered services for the business needs of the assessee company and the assessee company has also taken benefit of infrastructure resources services and expert guidance of the group corporate center at RPG Enterprises and, therefore, the expenditure was allowable. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 3.The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. Savant, 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