Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Pr...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Preetam Enterprises

High Court 27 Jun 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Preetam Enterprises
Date of order
27 Jun 2014
Assessment year(s)
2006-2007
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Preetam Enterprises, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.365 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.112 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant -Versus- M/s Preetam Enterprises. ..Respondent ........... Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Padma Divakar, for the Appellant. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 27[th] June, 2014 P.C.: 1These Appeals challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench dated 29.04.2011. The Assessment Years in question are 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. 2Though the order is common to third Assessment Year 2006-2007, we are of the opinion that the present Appeals of the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertain to the Assessment Years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. 3The questions of law which have been raised in the present Appeals are pertaining to the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses while determining the quantum of deduction available to the Assessee under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the deduction in terms of Section 80IA(5). 4We find that in relation to all these questions and deduction the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was view taken by the Assessing Officer which in the given facts and circumstances of the case was possible. The Tribunal without entertaining merits of these deductions held that recourse to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not permissible. That finding of fact which has been rendered by the Tribunal in this case does not merit any further consideration and determination by us in these Appeals. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record. These Appeals, therefore, do not deserve admission as they are not raising any substantial question of law. They are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan