The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.videocon Appliances Ltd
High Court
02 Jul 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.videocon Appliances Ltd
Date of order
02 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.videocon Appliances Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s.Videocon Appliances Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.Poonam Bhosale for the
Appellant.
Mr. F.V. Irani with Ms. Neeta Rajda i/by DSR
Associates for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.DATED: JULY 02, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JULY 02, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. Revenue is in appeal on two questions. In so far
as question (a) is concerned, the tribunal has
followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T.
Vs. Indo Nippon 261 ITR 275. Considering the same,
in our opinion, the question of law as framed would
not arise.
. In so far as question (b) is concerned, the
tribunal has followed the judgment of Gujarat High
Court in C.I.T. Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 251 ITR
61 (Guj). Revenue had taken up the matter in appeal
before the Supreme Court. The learned Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue on
that count. The Judgment in CIT Vs. Core Health
Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) has been followed
by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Arvind Polycot Ltd.
(2008) 299 ITR 12 SC. For the aforesaid reasons,
the question of law would not arise. Consequently
appeal dismissed.
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.