The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I v. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd
High Court
21 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I v. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd
Date of order
21 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I v. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
O. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2255 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I
..Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.
..Respondent.
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant.Mr.Parag Vyas with Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :
21[st] January, 2010.
1.The following question of law has been framed in the appeal by
the revenue under Section 260A if the Income Tax Act, 1961 :
“a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon ble Tribunal is right in confirming the’order of Ld. CIT(A) and thereby allowing benefits to the assessee ignoring assessee s failure to rebut AO s conclusion by providing’’corroborative evidence to bifurcate the direct and consignment sales for computing commission at prescribed percentage?”
2.The question as framed would clearly show that no substantial
question of law arises. The view taken by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 is a possible view. The CIT(A) had in paragraph 2.2 of his order noted that in terms of the agreement, commission was to be computed at 2% of the
consignment sales and hence the action of the assessing officer in computing
the commission with reference to the total sales was not justified. The CIT(A) rendered a finding of fact which has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.