The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All India Plastic Manufacturers
High Court
26 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All India Plastic Manufacturers
Date of order
26 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All India Plastic Manufacturers, 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. 56 OF 2008
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 147 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
The All India Plastic Manufacturers
Association .. Respondent
Mr.R. Ashokan for the Appellant.
Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JUNE 26, 2008
P.C.
. As the tax incidence is less than Rs. 4 lakhs, the
learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal
along with Motion. Hence, Appeal alogn with Motion
dismissed as withdrawn. The issue of law, if any, is
kept open for consideration in appropriate case.
Refund of court fees as per rules. C.C. expedited.
. Though the appeal is withdrawn, we may only refer to
the judgments cited on behalf of the assessee by the learned counsel in Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 82 ITR 704 Where the Apex
learned counsel in Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 82 ITR 704 Where the Apex Court has held that to serve a charitable purpose it is
not necessary that the object should be to benefit the
whole of mankind or all persons in a particular country
or state. It is sufficient if the intention to benefit
a section of the public as distinguished from a
specified individual is present. . Similar view
thereafter was taken in CIT Vs. Andhra Chamebr of
Commerce, 130 ITR 184.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.