Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd - 2014-LL-1210-9

Citation	2014-LL-1210-9
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-6
Respondent Name	M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	10/12/2014
Assessment Year	2005-06
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	substantial question law
Bot Summary:	The Revenue raises two questions, which are termed as substantial questions of law. They are formulated in para 4(a) om and 4(b) of the Paper Book. In relation to these questions, attention of the learned B Counsel appearing for the Revenue was invited to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v/s. The Division Bench, to which one of us ou was a party, has dealt with identical questions and answered them in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Nothing different or distinct and not covered C by this judgment has been brought to our notice by Ms.Bharucha. She fairly concedes that two questions stand answered in terms of h this judgment. It does H not raise any substantial question of law.

1/2 itxa-1214-12.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rt INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1214 OF 2012 ou Commissioner of Income Tax-6 ...Appellant v/s. M/s.Balkrishna Industries Ltd. ...Respondent Ms. S.V.Bharucha for Appellant. C CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & h A.A. SAYED, JJ. ig DATED : 10 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. This Appeal challenges order dated 12 August 2011 H passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.4008/Mum/2010 for Assessment Year y 2005-06. ba 2. Revenue raises two questions, which are termed as substantial questions of law. They are formulated in para 4(a) om and 4(b) of Paper Book. 3. In relation to these questions, attention of learned B Counsel appearing for Revenue was invited to Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v/s. M/s. Sulzer India Limited, Income Tax Appeal Uday Kambli 1/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 15:41:09 ::: 2/2 itxa-1214-12.doc No.450 of 2013 decided alongwith connected Appeals on rt 5 December 2014. Division Bench, to which one of us ou (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) was party, has dealt with identical questions and answered them in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. Nothing different or distinct and not covered C by this judgment has been brought to our notice by Ms.Bharucha. She fairly concedes that two questions stand answered in terms of h this judgment. 4. ig Appeal, therefore, need not be entertained. It does H not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. y ba (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) om B Uday Kambli 2/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 15:41:09 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd

Metadata

Judgment