In The Commissioner Ofincome-Tax Mumbai v. M/S. Better Value Leasing Andfinancing Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.The following question of law has been raised before the Tribunal:- "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalwas right in law in directing to allowinvestment allowance on the plant andmachinery leased out.?" and against the revenue in the case of Shah Finance (Pvt) Ltd...
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 APPLICATION No.80/2002.
The Commissioner ofIncome-tax Mumbai.
..Applicant.
Vs.
M/s. Better Value Leasing andFinancing Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent.
Mr Ashok Kotangale, Advocate for Applicant.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:2nd April, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2.The following question of law has been
raised before the Tribunal:-
"Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalwas right in law in directing to allowinvestment allowance on the plant andmachinery leased out.?"
and against the revenue in the case of Shah Finance (Pvt) Ltd, reported in 199 ITR
409.
4.In view of the aforesaid matter, we are
not inclined to entertain the application.
The application is dismissed.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C. DAGA,J.)
CIT vs.
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.
EaseValue