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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.weldon Spares Corporation

High Court 30 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.weldon Spares Corporation
Date of order
30 Jun 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.weldon Spares Corporation, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.109 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant Vs. M/s.Weldon Spares Corporation....Respondent Mrs.S.M.Shah, for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2008 CORAM: F.I. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: . The A.O. has made certain additions on the ground that there were bogus entries. The C.I.T. after considering the record reversed the said finding on the ground that the assessee had been able to show that the items have been purchased and the sale proceeds are accounted for. The learned I.T.A.T. after going through the record and considering the evidence of the assessee observed that the assessee had paid sales tax over the items sold and the copy of the sales tax assessment order dated 16th October, 2000 for the relevant assessment year along with the relevant documents and that the sales have been accepted by the sales tax and income tax authorities as genuine. The learned Tribunal concurred with the finding of C.I.T. Appeals that there cannot be any sales without the previous purchases and noted that the assessee is a 100% supplier to Government concerns. On all the evidence on record the I.T.A.T. held that there is no evidence much less negative evidence to prove that the purchases were bogus. These are two concurrent findings of fact. The question of law as framed would not arise and consequently Appeal dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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