The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City 19, Mumbai v. M/S.petroleum India International
High Court
10 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City 19, Mumbai v. M/S.petroleum India International
Date of order
10 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City 19, Mumbai v. M/S.petroleum India International, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.In view of above, both the appeals are 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2620 OF 2009
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2611 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City 19, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Petroleum India International
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.S.E. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Niraj Seth i/by Mint & Conferes for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 10[th] January 2013
P.C. :
1.Mentioned. Not on board. Taken up for hearing and final
disposal by consent of both the parties.
2.In these appeals filed by the Revenue, following substantial
question of law have been raised for the consideration of this Court.
“Whether on true and proper interpretation of Section 40(a)(iii) read with Section 192 and Section 195 of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to deductions on the payments made to their employees without deduction of TDS on the amount ?”
3.Counsel for the parties agree that the issues raised in this appeal stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court rendered in the assessee's own case today i.e. 10[th ]January 2013, being Income Tax Appeal No.3653 of 2009.
4.In view of above, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.