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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.castle Investment & Inds.p.ltd

High Court 22 Jul 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.castle Investment & Inds.p.ltd
Date of order
22 Jul 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.castle Investment & Inds.p.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: By this Appeal, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80M of the I.T.Act 1961?

Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.

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 NO.1557 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1557 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Castle Investment & Inds.P.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2008 DATE : 22nd July, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By this Appeal, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80M of the I.T.Act 1961? 2. Perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.7.2007. For the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.18, 19 & 20 of the said judgment, we find no question of law involved in this Appeal. The Tribunal has followed its own decision as referred to in paragraph No.20 of the judgment, which has not been challenged by the Revenue. No substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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