The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Indokem Ltd
High Court
15 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Indokem Ltd
Date of order
15 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Indokem Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appeal has been preferred on the following questions : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of C.I.T.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Indokem Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.A.D. Kango with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the
Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. The appeal has been preferred on the following
questions :
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was justified in law
in confirming the order of C.I.T. (A) by
holding that the amount paid to the
employees under the voluntary retirement
Scheme was covered u.s. 10(19B) and hence,
action u.s. S. 201(1) of the I.T. Act was
not justified?"
. The appellant before the tribunal was Revenue.
The learned tribunal has considering the facts on
record concurred with the findings on record by
((-2-))
Commissioner (Appeals), that it was under the bona
fide belief and consequently the default was for
good and sufficient reasons. In our opinion
considering that two concurrent findings of fact,
the question of law as framed would not arise.
Consequently appeal dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, 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.