Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai v. M/S.modest Maritime Services P. Limited

High Court 01 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai v. M/S.modest Maritime Services P. Limited
Date of order
01 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai v. M/S.modest Maritime Services P. Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3622 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 9, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Modest Maritime Services P. Limited..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 1[st] July, 2011. 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal. 2.The assessee is a shipping agent providing services to ships and act as a off-shore representative. During the course of its business, the assessee was required to make deposits on behalf of its customers on various accounts with the Mumbai Port Trust. After recovering the charges, Mumbai Port Trust used to refund the amount which were admittedly returned by the assessee to its principal as and when demanded. The refund amounts lying with the assessee for more than three years were considered by the assessee as its income and offered to tax. 3.The assessing officer rejected the method of accounting followed by the assessee and brought the entire refund amount lying with the assessee to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish particulars called for by the officer. 4.The Tribunal while deleting the additions, held that there is no infirmity in the method followed by the assessee and moreover, the balance refund amount has been offered to tax in the subsequent assessment years which the department has accepted. 5.In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, 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