THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. MOHANRAO SHINDE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/914/2020HC BombayHCBM07001747202003 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, held that the present appeal has become infructuous. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the amended provision of Section 155(19) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, addresses deductions made prior to AY 2016-17. As the present dispute falls within this period (April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012), the questions of law and the lis would no longer survive. The Court was also apprised that a rectification order for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had already been passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Court directed that the rectification order be complied with in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur (Revenue) against Mohanrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Assessee). The dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 2012-13, covering the period from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order that is not explicitly detailed but relates to deductions made. The Revenue's counsel argued that due to an amendment in Section 155(19) of the Income-tax Act, the questions of law and the dispute itself would no longer survive. The Revenue also stated that a rectification order for AY 2012-13 had already been passed by the Assessing Officer, rendering the present appeal infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amended provision of Section 155(19) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, renders the present appeal concerning deductions made prior to AY 2016-17 infructuous? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Assessee. However, the Revenue's submission implies that the Assessee would likely agree with the Revenue's position that the appeal has become infructuous. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel Ms. Thakur, argued that the amended provision of Section 155(19) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows deductions made prior to AY 2016-17. Consequently, the questions of law framed and the dispute in the present case, which covers the period April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, would no longer survive. Furthermore, the Revenue submitted that an appropriate rectification order for AY 2012-13 has already been passed by the Assessing Officer, making the present appeal infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 155(19),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1-itxa-914-2020.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(IT) NO. 914 OF 2020 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolhapur VERSUS Mohanrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ms. Smita Thakur for the appellant. Mr. Ruturaj Gujar for the respondents. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : JULY 3, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Thakur, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gujar, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. We appreciate Ms. Thakur's physical appearance in Kolhapur to address the present issue, since we heard her on video conferencing on substantial questions of law in the present Section 260A appeal on the last occasion. Without going into the merits of the matter, it is prima facie seen, and as argued and apprised by Ms. Thakur, that in view of the amended provision of Section 155(19) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the questions of law framed as also the lis in the present case would no longer survive since the amended provision allows deductions made VRJ 1 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2026.07.06 11:41:42 +0530

1-itxa-914-2020.docx prior to AY 2016–17. The present lis covers the period between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012. 3. In that view of the matter, Ms. Thakur would submit that in the case of the appellant, appropriate rectification order has now already been passed for the Assessment Year 2012–13 by the concerned Assessing Officer and, therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous. 4. The rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer be complied with in accordance with law. 5. Present appeal stands disposed of in view of the above. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) VRJ 2

More judgments on Section 155(19)

All 38 judgments and leading authorities on Section 155(19) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →