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.)
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.