The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. V&V Designs Pvt. Ltd
High Court
09 Sep 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. V&V Designs Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
09 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. V&V Designs Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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. 438 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ...Appellant
Versus
V&V Designs Pvt. Ltd. ...
Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM:B ILAL NAZKI
and
A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.
DATE:SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
P.C.:-
Question No. 4(a), as framed in the Memo of Appeal, doesnot raise any question of law.
2.Question No. 4(b) is as follows:-
“The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is erred in not confirming thedisallowance of Rs.92,43,476/- by concluding that the debtswhich are originally provided for in the books cannot beallowed without appreciating that the original return as well asbooks are revised and the amounts were actually written off?”
3.
We understand that the Tribunal remanded the matter back to
the Assessing Officer to inspect the Cash Method of Accounting Systemfollowed by the assessee regularly, and thereafter determine the incomeafter ascertaining the factual position in regard to receipt. There is afinding of fact that the assessee was maintaining Cash Method ofAccounting, and, therefore, the Tribunal directed to determine theincome after ascertaining the factual position with regard to debts whichhad been allegedly written off.
4.In this view of the matter, we do not find that any question oflaw falls for determination by this Court in the appeal. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
A.A. KUMBHAKONI, 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.