The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai
High Court
02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai v. M/S.wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeals are, therefore, 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2632 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2633 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2634 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – I, MumbaiVersusM/s.Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, Mumbai
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2[nd] July, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue.
2.The question of law sought to be raised in these appeals revolve around non-compliance of conditions stipulated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has categorically recorded finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, which reads as under :
“6............ In our opinion, if any deduction is allowed after considering the material facts and the relevant provisions then it cannot be said that any income had escaped on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts. In view of the above discussion, the orders of the CIT (A) are upheld.
3.In the above view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.