Case LawHigh Court › The Commissionerof Income Tax-2 v. M/S....

The Commissionerof Income Tax-2 v. M/S. L&T Welfare Company Ltd

High Court 16 Jun 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissionerof Income Tax-2 v. M/S. L&T Welfare Company Ltd
Date of order
16 Jun 2015
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissionerof Income Tax-2 v. M/S. L&T Welfare Company Ltd, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: 3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bsb 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1655 OF 2013 The Commissionerof Income Tax-2 … Appellant v/s M/s. L&T Welfare Company Ltd. … Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Atul Jasani for the respondent. CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2015 P.C.: This appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges the order dated 16 November 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order allowed the appellant's application only for correcting a mistake in the title of the order dated 12 August 2011. Otherwise the order dated 12 August 2011 on merits allowing the respondent assessee's appeal was undisturbed. 2 The impugned order merely corrects the title of the earlier order dated 12 August 2011 indicating the array of parties. This bsb 2 correction of the title by the impugned order does not lead to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, there is no reason to entertain the present appeal. 3In any event, the question as proposed in this appeal would really arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated 12 August 2011 on merits of the respondent assessee's appeal. The aforesaid order dated 12 August 2011 has merely restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s D.C.I.T., reported in 328 ITR 81 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The questions as formulated by the revenue even if taken as arising from order dated 12 August 2011 also do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( N. M. JAMDAR, J. ) ( M.S. SANKLECHA, 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