The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi v. M/S. Jet Roadlines (India) Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3495 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1729 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income TAx VI.Vs. M/s. Jet Roadlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mr.A.D.Kango with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.J.Mehta i/by M/s. S.P. Mehta for the Respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Considering the cause shoswn, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1729 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income TAx VI.Vs. M/s. Jet Roadlines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mr.A.D.Kango with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.J.Mehta i/by M/s. S.P. Mehta for the Respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC :1. In so far as question (a) is concerned as the dueswere paid within grace period, the finding of thetribunal is according to law and consequently, thequestion (a) would not arise.2. In so far as question (b) is concerned, the tribunalhas followed the orders of the earlier years. We haveperused the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It wasaffirmed by the ITAT. The claims are towards loss ofdamage of goods within the course of transportation. Inour opinion, this would be clearly a business expenditure. In the light of that, question as framed would not arise and consequently, the appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)