The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Tata Ssl Ltd
High Court
07 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Tata Ssl Ltd
Date of order
07 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Tata Ssl Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Rs.65,45,175 paid by the asessee to M/s.
Decision: Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
TATA SSL Ltd.
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, A.P.P. for the Appellant.
Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Ajit Shah with Mr. Shrihari Iyer for Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR ANDSMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2011.
P.C.
Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Rs.65,45,175
paid by the asessee to M/s. Renoir Consultancy towards consultancy charges was a revenue expenditure is the question raised in this appeal.
The tribunal in Para 15 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that as a consequence of study carried out by the Renoir Consultancy and on account of implementation of various suggestions given by Renior Consultancy, the profitability of the company had improved and accordingly the expenditure incurred by the assessee was allowable
expenditure. In our opinion, as the decision of the Tribunal is based on
finding of fact, no question arises. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
( SMT.R.P, SONDURBALDOTA,, J. )
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.