Disposed

The C.I.T.,Mumbai City IV Mumbai. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Bombay.

Bombay HC4 Jun 2007ITA/113/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decided Income Tax Application No.113 of 2000. The Bench followed Britannia Industries Ltd. and held the question of law in favor of the Revenue regarding section 37(4). A second question was decided in favor of the Assessee citing Associated Bearing Co. Ltd., leaving the application disposed.

What did the court decide?

The application is disposed of accordingly.

The C.I.T.,Mumbai City IV Mumbai. Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2000

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Applicant
Vs.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the Applicant. Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 4TH JUNE, 2007 P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant
and the Respondent. In the above application,
following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, law, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure on repairs and payment of rates and taxes are not disallowable under section 37(4) ?
2. Both learned Counsel for Applicant and the
Respondent agree that this application itself be
treated as a statement of the case and the substantial question of law be decided accordingly.
3. Both learned Counsel for the Applicant and the
Respondent submit that the above question of law

¶6

:2:

¶7

sought	to be	rais	ed	is	square	ly	cover	ed	by	the
Judgment	of	the	Apex	Court	in	the	case	of		Britannia
Industries	Ltd.	Vs	.	Commis	sioner	of	Income		Tax	&
Anr.278	I.T.R.	546	in	favour	of	the	Reven	ue.		Under
the	aforesaid	facts	and	circu	mstance	s,	we	answer		the

¶8

question of law in favour of the Revenue and against

¶9

the Assessee.

¶10

As far as the second question is concerned,
the same is covered against the Revenue and in favour
of the Assessee, and in view of the judgment in the
case of Associated Bearing Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner

¶11

of Income Tax (2006) 286 ITR 341(Bom) , the Application

¶12

stands disposed of accordingly.

¶13

(V.C.DAGA,J.)

¶14

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

The C.I.T.,Mumbai City IV Mumbai. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Bombay.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.I.T.,Mumbai City IV Mumbai. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Bombay.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad.

M/S. Quality Apparels Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.

The Commissioner of I-Tax Vs Ardi Investment and Trading Co.Ltd.

The C.I.T.,City Iv,Mumbai . Vs M/S.Yashdhir Hotels Ltd.