Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S.searle (I) Ltd

High Court In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S.searle (I) Ltd
Date of order
Assessment year(s)
1984-85
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S.searle (I) Ltd, the High Court allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6263 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Searle (I) Ltd. .. Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for the respondent CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 5TH OCTOBER, 2011.DATE: 5TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Not on board. Taken up by consent of the parties. 2. Heard. Admit on the following questions of law. “(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance made by A.O. u/s.40A(5) of Rs.90,000? case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance made by A.O. u/s.40A(5) of Rs.90,000? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the terminal allowance u/s.32(1)(iii) of Rs.1 lac?”case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the terminal allowance u/s.32(1)(iii) of Rs.1 lac?” 3. As regards the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 283 ITR 84, the said question is liable to be Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 283 ITR 84, the said question is liable to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, first question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4. As regards the second question is concerned, ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the case of the Assessee for A.Y. 1984-85. Counsel for the revenue states that the appeal filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT for A.Y.1984-85 has been dismissed for want of removal of office objection. No steps have been taken to restore the said appeal. Moreover, no error is pointed out in the decision of the ITAT. In these circumstances, the second question cannot be entertained. 5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (K.K. TATED, 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