In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Issue: The question of law referred to this court for opinion under section256(1) of the Income-tax Act, by the Tribunal at the instance of theassessee is as follows: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that thecontribution of Rs.4,80,0...
Decision: The contribution, being the voluntary payment made by the assessee, considering commercial expediency is an allowablededuction under section 37 as held in the judgment of the DivisionBench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.B.G.Shirke & Co., reported in [2003] 127 TAX,AM 245...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 267 of 1988
The Commissioner of Income Tax
... Applicant.
vs.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd., .... Respondent
Mr. Ashok Kotangale for Applicant.Mr. B. Vaidya i/b. S.N. Inamdar for Respondent.
CORAM:V.C.DAGA AND A. S. AGUIAR JJ.
Date: 4[th] July, 2005.
P. C.:
1. The question of law referred to this court for opinion under section256(1) of the Income-tax Act, by the Tribunal at the instance of theassessee is as follows:
1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that thecontribution of Rs.4,80,000/- is allowable deductionunder section 37 of the Income Tax Act , for AssessmentYear 1977-78?”
2. The contribution, being the voluntary payment made by
the assessee, considering commercial expediency is an allowablededuction under section 37 as held in the judgment of the DivisionBench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.B.G.Shirke & Co., reported in [2003] 127 TAX,AM 245 (BOM.).Following this judgment, we answer the question referred to us inaffirmative, i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
(V. C. DAGA J. )
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
-x-
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.