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.)
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.