The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Krutadnya Management & Trading
High Court
16 Oct 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Krutadnya Management & Trading
Date of order
16 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Krutadnya Management & Trading, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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. 14 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I..Appellantversus
Krutadnya Management & TradingServices Pvt. Ltd., Pune..Respondent
--------
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
.............
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE
: 16[th] October, 2012
P.C. :
1Although, four questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, the basic question is “Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that
the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2
The Tribunal allowed the claim of the
assessee by following its decision in the case of
Castle Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd. being Income Tax Appeal No. 1557 of 2007 has been dismissed by this court on 22.07.2008. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(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.