The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro
High Court
11 Feb 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro
Date of order
11 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App
Versus
M/s. Deepak Fertilizers & Petro-
Chemicals Corporation Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. B.V. Jhaveri with Ms. Priti Shukla for
Respondents.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009
P.C.
P.C.
. The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the
following question of law:
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Tribunal was
right in law in confirming the order of the
Ld. CIT(A) in directing to treat forfeited
debenture application money of Rs.6.36 lac.
as capital receipt not chargeable to tax,
ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar
& Sons Ltd.?"
. The said question has been covered by the
judgment of this court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 261 ITR 501. In
the light of the above, question as framed would not
arise and we find no reason to differ with the
Coordinate Bench decision of this court. Appeal
accordingly dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,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.