Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Gsa Petroleum, Nagpur

High Court 28 Jun 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Gsa Petroleum, Nagpur
Date of order
28 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax I v. M/S. Gsa Petroleum, Nagpur, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: The Assessing Officer has been asked to verify the details of expenses submitted by the assessee and to find out further whether any amount was payable as on 31.03.2005 so that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act may remain outstanding to the extent of amount so payab...

Decision: Therefore, the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside.

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 BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL (ITL) NO. 1 OF 2013 -(The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. GSA Petroleum, Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. JUNE 28, 2013. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant. The effort of the learned counsel is to demonstrate that the remand is not necessary as the judgment of Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport Company vs. ACIT is already being looked into by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We have perused the order dated 15.10.2012 delivered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). In paras 6 & 7, the ITAT has found it necessary to extend proper opportunity to both the parties and therefore, restored the question back to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has been asked to verify the details of expenses submitted by the assessee and to find out further whether any amount was payable as on 31.03.2005 so that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act may remain outstanding to the extent of amount so payable on that date. Therefore, the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside. In para 7, the ITAT has also allowed additional ground raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and left all issues open for consideration by the Assessing Officer. The remand by ITAT is, therefore, to consider additional ground raised by the assessee and therefore with a view to enable facts to be crystallized. After proper facts come on record, all questions of law can be appropriately looked into. In this situation, we are not inclined to evaluate the arguments of Shri Parchure, learned counsel on merits at this juncture. Leaving said contentions open, as we do not find any substantial question of law arising in this appeal at least at this juncture, we dispose of this appeal. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan