The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vpune-411 044 v. Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.pune- 411 019
High Court
16 Oct 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vpune-411 044 v. Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.pune- 411 019
Date of order
16 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vpune-411 044 v. Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.pune- 411 019, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATE : 16[th] October, 2012 P.C. : 1 The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus: “Onthefactsand circumstances of the case, whether the ITAT erred in allowing the claim of paymentmadeforVoluntarily Retirement Scheme by the assessee whichwastreatedascapital expenditure by the...
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. 6898 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-VPune-411 044..Appellant
versus
Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.Pune- 411 019..Respondent
--------
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Padma Diwakar for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Inamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent.
.............
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE
: 16[th] October, 2012
P.C. :
1
The question of law raised by the Revenue
in this appeal reads thus:
“Onthefactsand circumstances of the case, whether the ITAT erred in allowing the claim of paymentmadeforVoluntarily Retirement Scheme by the assessee whichwastreatedascapital expenditure by the AO and not allowing deduction u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961?”
and
2In view of the fact that the question raised in this appeal stands covered against the Revenue by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd., reported in 264 ITR 180, we see no reason to entertain this 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.
EaseValue