In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Kolhapur v. Marvelous Metals Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATE : 16th November 2011 P.C. : 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the wastage claimed by the assessee at 10.90% was proper instead of the wastage computed by the assessing officer at 7..43% of the production is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6156 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Kolhapur
..Appellant.
Versus
Marvelous Metals Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 16th November 2011
P.C. :
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the wastage claimed by the assessee at 10.90% was proper instead of the wastage computed by the assessing officer at 7..43% of the production is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para-4 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee has furnished number of documents to demonstrate on the basis of which the production could be correctly ascertained and tallied with the stock. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the wastage computed by the assessee was proper and the assessing officer was not justified in
computing the wastage on an estimate basis.
3.The decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is 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.