Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur v...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Tumsar

High Court 17 Feb 2015 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · testcase

Parties

Date of order

17 Feb 2015

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Tumsar, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question referred to: “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in holding that royalty of Rs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITR No.29B/1986 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Tumsar----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's ordersor directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge'sOrders. CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. DATE : 17[th] February, 2015. Heard Advocate Parchure for the petitioner and Advocate Dewani for the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1973-1974. The question referred to: “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in holding that royalty of Rs. 4,76,683/- and currency difference of Rs. 16,721/- was allowable as revenue expenditure?” Thus, tax effect will be less than the one prescribed in paragraph 3 of the Instruction no.5 of 2008. Therefore, following the order passed today in WTR No.56B of 1982 (The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Nagpur Vs. Saraf (HUF) Kathmandu), the Income Tax Reference is returned to the Department. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar

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.