Remanded

C.I.T.-Iii, Bombay. v. Ramnord Research Laboratories Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2007ITR/70/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court judgment addresses three cross-reference questions under the Income-tax Act. The revenue-originated questions were returned unanswered. Regarding the assessee's question on section 145 application, the court set aside the Tribunal's order for lack of specific findings and remanded the matter for de novo consideration relying on a supreme court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Tribunal dated 29/9/1984 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration on the issue raised.

C.I.T.-Iii, Bombay. Vs Ramnord Research Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.70 OF 1988

¶4

 The Commissioner of Income-tax )
 Bombay City - III, Bombay. )..Applicant.
 V/s.

¶5

 Ramnord Research Laboratories P. )
 Ltd., 77, Dr. Annie Besant Road, )
 Worli, Mumbai - 400 018. )..Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for applicant.

¶7

 Mr.Nilesh Joshi with Ms.Nikitha Narsena i/b. Dhru &
 Co. for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : F.I.REBELLOAND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2007.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

¶11

 1. In this cross reference the Income Tax

¶12

 Appellate Tribunal has forwarded two questions of law
 raised by the revenue and one question of law raised by
 the assessee for the opinion of this Court. The said
 questions relating to A.Y. 1978-79 and 1979-80 reads
 as under:-

¶13

 Questions at the instance of the revenue

¶14

 "1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the value of the stock of unsold
 raw films with the assessee is not assessable

¶15

 -= : 2 : =-

¶16

 as the income of the assessee either on the
 ground that the assessee had not received the
 permission to sell them or on the ground that
 the assessee could value them at cost, in
 accordance with its past practice, which was
 admittedly ‘nil’ ?

¶17

 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case, the limits laid down in section
 40(c) or those laid down in section 40A(5) are
 applicable in case of Directors who are
 employed ? "

¶18

Question at theinstance of assessee.

¶19

 "Whether the Tribunal was not right in sustaining the
 addition of Rs.1,60,000/- in the assessment for
 1978-79; Rs.1,40,000/- in the assessment for 1979-80
 as income derived from extraction of silver from hypo
 solution after processing the film by making an
 estimate under the proviso to section 145 of the
 Income-tax Act, on the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case ? "

¶20

 2. As regards the two questions forwarded at the

¶21

 instance of the revenue, Mr.Sahadevan, learned counsel
 appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that he is
 not pressing the said two questions in view of the fact
 that the tax effect in both the questions for both the
 years is less than Rs.4 lakhs. Accordingly, the two
 questions referred at the instance of the revenue are
 returned unanswered.

¶22

 3. As regards the question forwarded at the
 instance of the assessee is concerned, counsel on both
 sides agree that the issue before the Tribunal was

¶23

 -= : 3 : =-

¶24

 whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶25

 C.I.T. (A) was justified in holding that the proviso
 to section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was
 applicable or not. Though the Tribunal has forwarded a
 statement of the case to that effect, on perusal of the
 order passed by the Tribunal it is seen that there is
 no specific finding recorded to that effect. In this
 view of the matter, counsel on both the sides agree
 that in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in
 the case of Salem Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 201 I.T.R. 697,
 the order of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter
 be remanded back to the Tribunal for de novo
 consideration.

¶26

 4. Accordingly, reference is returned unanswered
 by setting aside the order of the Tribunal; dated
 29/9/1984 and remanding the matter back to the Tribunal
 for consideration on the issue raised before it in
 accordance with law.

¶27

 5. Reference is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

 However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶29

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶30

 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

¶31

 -= : 4 : =-

C.I.T.-Iii, Bombay. v. Ramnord Research Laboratories Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.I.T.-Iii, Bombay. v. Ramnord Research Laboratories Pvt.Ltd.

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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Iii,Mumbai Vs M/S Sonnet Rrading and Investment P.Ltd

The Commissioner of Income TAX-11, Mumbai Vs M/S. Sai Pranjape Filims P. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Ii Vs M/S Sai Paranjpe Films Pvt. Ltd. Mum

thee commissioner of income-tax,centrali,mum Vs m/s regal shoes

The Commissioner OFDINCOME-TAX-CITY-16 Vs Shri Rakesh Sekhsaria

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-I. Mumbai Vs M/S. Regal Shoes