The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.otis Elevator
High Court
17 Sep 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.otis Elevator
Date of order
17 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
1989-90, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1997-98
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.otis Elevator, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1685 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
M/s.OTIS Elevator
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.Firoze Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, with Mr.B.G.Yewale for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009
P.C.
1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.So far as first question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact
in the following words:
6.Having heard both the parties and having considered the material on record, we find that the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y.1989-90 to A.Y.1993-94 and A.Y.1995-96 to 1996-97 has held that the system of accounting employed by the assessee consistently since decades cannot be rejected and this view was followed for subsequent A.Y.1997-98 to 1999-2000, 2000-2001. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
3. So far as second question is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428. The learned Counsel for the Revenue could not distinguish the said judgment. In this view of the matter, the appeal is without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.