The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii, Mumbai v. Excel Industries Limited
High Court
25 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii, Mumbai v. Excel Industries Limited
Date of order
25 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii, Mumbai v. Excel Industries Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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.1183 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Excel Industries Limited..Respondent.
Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Ms.Vasanti B. Patel for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 25[th] November 2011
P.C. :
1.Whether the advance license and the DEPB benefits receivable by
the assessee are liable to be assessed to tax in the year in which the license is
granted to the licensee or liable to be taxed in the year in which the benefits actually accrue after the imports are effected, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal following its decision in the case of Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited reported in
41 ITD 142 held that the said amounts are liable to be taxed in the year in which the benefits actually accrue to the assessee and not in the year in
which the license is granted. This Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax V/s. M/s.Mafatlal Industries Limited, being Income Tax Appeal no.424 of 2009 decided on 22[nd] September 2009 has upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited (supra).
3.In this view of the matter, we see no merit to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R. Joshi, 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.