The Malegaon S.s.k. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nasik
High Court
13 Oct 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Malegaon S.s.k. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nasik
Date of order
13 Oct 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Malegaon S.s.k. Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nasik, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
sbw
*1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 58 OF 2000
The Malegaon S.S.K. Ltd.
..Applicant
-Versus-
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik
..Respondent
WITH
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 68 OF 2000
Chhatrapati S.S.K. Ltd.
..Applicant
-Versus-The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
..Respondent
...........
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Revenue.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Assessee.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND
A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE :- 13[th] OCTOBER, 2014
P.C.:
1]In the above two References, the common question has been framed
for opinion of this Court as follows:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payments made towards education fund is not the allowable business expenditure?”
2]Following the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax V/s. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana reported in 229 ITR 577, we hold that the deletion of education fund by the Tribunal was correct and accordingly the question in relation to the same is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The References are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
wadhwa
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