The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.ltd
High Court
15 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.ltd
Date of order
15 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appeal has been preferred on the following questions : "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions of Rs.1.20 crores to the value of closing stock on account of Modvat credit of excise duty? ii) Whether on the facts and i...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the
Appellant.
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala with Ms. S. Vedpathak i/by
Maneksha & Sethna for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. The appeal has been preferred on the following
questions :
"i) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in deleting the additions of
Rs.1.20 crores to the value of closing stock
on account of Modvat credit of excise duty?
ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the Sales Tax
receipts can not form part of the total turn
((-2-))
over while computing the deduction u/s.
80HHC of the I.T. Act?
iii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in setting aside the order of
C.I.T. (A) and holding that the assessee is
entitled to deduction u/s. 32AB inclusive
of income assessable under the head "income
from Other Sources"?"
. In so far as question (a) is concerned, the same
is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in
261 ITR 275.
. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, the
same is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in 290 ITR 667.
. In so far as question No. 3 is covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in 282 ITR 547. The
questions of law as framed would not arise.
Consequently appeal dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.