The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.agricultural Aviation Pvt. Ltd
High Court
20 Feb 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.agricultural Aviation Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
20 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.agricultural Aviation Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.376 of 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax ...........Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Agricultural Aviation Pvt. Ltd.....Respondent
Mr. P.S.Sahadevan, for the appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 20th February,2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 20th February,2009
P.C. . The Tribunal has concurred with the finding
P.C.
of fact recorded by C.I.T. (Appeals) that the
expenses were incurred for consumption of minor
spare-parts,mostly imported from outside India.
These were incurred for repairs of the helicopter
which would be permissible deduction within the
meaning of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, 1963.
2. Learned Counsel places reliance o the
judgment in Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr. vs.
Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr. vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, 224 I.T.R. 413.
Commissioner of Income Tax, 224 I.T.R. 413. On
facts down there the building which was used as a
ginning factory was converted into a cinema theatre.
It is in that context the Supreme Court held that
the expenses are capital in nature and, therefore,
has to be treated as renovation expenses. In our
opinion the facts there and the facts here are
entirely different. The judgment is, therefore,
distinguishable. There is no merit in this Appeal.
Appeal accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,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.