The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Special Steels Ltd
High Court
04 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Special Steels Ltd
Date of order
04 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Special Steels Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 161 OF 200
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 161 OF 200
5 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 161 OF 200
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Special Steels Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. P.C. Tripathi for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: MARCH 04, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 04, 2008
P.C.
. The Assessing Officer had held in favour of the
Assessee that the expenditure was in respect of the
expansion of existing business. The Commissioner
(Appeal) reversed the findings holding that the
business sought to be done was different from the
existing business. The tribunal found that this is
a factual error. The tribunal on the facts came to
the conclusion that the new business is an expansion
of existing business and does not warrant being
treated as a new business itself. Considering the
factual finding of fact, the question of law would
not arise and consequently appeal dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.