The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central β 1, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai
High Court
07 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central β 1, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
07 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
β
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central β 1, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order β as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2434 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central β 1, MumbaiVersus
..Appellant.
M/s.Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai ..
....Respondent.
Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant.
Mr.Parag Vyas with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 7[th] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to various deductions that were claimed. The Tribunal has relied upon an earlier judgment dated 13[th] March 2008 in Income Tax Appeal Nos.5446 to 5448/Mum/2005. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the Appeals filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal dated 13[th] March 2008 were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2[nd] July 2009 in Income Tax Appeal
(L) Nos. 2632 to 2634 of 2008. In these circumstances, learned counsel fairly states that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the issue which arises in this appeal is covered against the revenue by the aforesaid decisions.
2.The Appeal, therefore, does not give rise to any substantial question of law and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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 β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient 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.