Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangab...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. M/S. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd

High Court 06 Jan 2015 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. M/S. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
06 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. M/S. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2015) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad ...Appellant versus M/s. Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent ….. Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the appellantMr. S.V. Advant, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 7[th] JANUARY, 2015 P.C. :- 1.Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order, as the facts in these appeals are almost similar. Both these appeals are filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that the Assessing Officer had erred in bringing the tax under Section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act. The difference between the principal value of sales-tax deferral loan and net present value credited to Capital Reserve. Both these authorities have considered the case quite cogently and held that the TA79.13 amount so credited to capital reserve was not the revenue received. 2.This Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 450 of 2013, 453 of 2013 and other connected Appeals, comprehensively, held that such credit should not be considered as revenue receipt. 3.We have perused the judgment referred to above and found that the Division Bench of this Court has considered the question comprehensively taking into account the entire gamut relating to law and the arguments advanced by the appellant. There is one more judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. M/s. McDOWELL & CO LTD, in Income Tax Appeal No. 899 of 2008, dated 2.9.2014. 4.We have no difficulty in accepting the findings recorded by the lower authorities. We hold that, in view of the settled law, there appears no substantial question of law arise in these appeals. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. ( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ) rlj/ TA79.13
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