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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Walchandnagar Ins. Ltd

High Court 17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Walchandnagar Ins. Ltd
Date of order
17 Mar 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. Walchandnagar Ins. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question of law framed is as under : "Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,35,14,914/- on account of the commission paid even though assessee was unable to prove that the services were rendered by the commission agent?" .

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 JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 109 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Walchandnagar Ins. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant. Mrs.Vasanti B. Patel for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. . The question of law framed is as under : "Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,35,14,914/- on account of the commission paid even though assessee was unable to prove that the services were rendered by the commission agent?" . The tribunal in the impugned order has noted that for the assessment year 1990-91, the tribunal recorded a finding which is reproduced and to the effect that the payees of commission are income tax assessees and has disclosed the commission in their returns. The same view was taken for the assessment years 1993-94. In respect of the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 and 1993-94 the revenue has not preferred appeal. In other words, in respect of the same issue in respect of the same assessee, the revenue has accepted the order of the tribunal. . Once that be the case, in our opinion, it will not be open to the appellant to raise the same issue. The question of law as framed would not arise. Considering the findings of fact recorded as nothing contrary is brought out in the subsequent years. Appeal accordingly 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.)
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