Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus M/S AEQUEOS VICTUALSPVT.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. M/S Aequeos Victualspvt. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 28 of 1994 [2005] RD-AH 1782 (28 July 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

I.T.R.28 of 1994

Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v. M/s. Acqueous Victuals Pvt. Ltd., Bareilly.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was, in law, justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (central) passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the issue of income from empty bottles and wooden crates?"

The Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1983-84 to 1985-86.

We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.

It has been stated by Sri A.N.Mahajan that similar question came up for consideration before the this Court in another case of the respondent-assessee itself, in respect of the previous year, which is reported in (2004) 266 ITR 573,  wherein this Court has held that wooden shells and crates/bottles used by the assessee in its business of bottling soft drinks were plant. Thus, order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263 has rightly been cancelled by the Tribunal.  He further informed that the special leave petition filed against the aforesaid judgment has also been dismissed by the Apex Court.

We accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

28.7.2005

mt


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.