In Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. M/S.victory Flask Co. P. Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed by answering the question in the negative i.e in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1205 OF 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax-10)..AppellantVs.
M/s.Victory Flask Co. P. Ltd.,
)..Respondents
----
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Mr. A.K.Jasani for the respondents.
----
CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ
DATE : 18/1/2011.
PC
1Heard.
2Admit on the following question of law :-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C when tax liability of the assessee is determined u/s 115JB of the Act ?
appeal is answered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jt.CIT Vs.Rolta India Ltd., in Civil Appeal
No.135 of 2011 decided on 7.1.2011. In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed by answering the question in the negative i.e in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Appeal is disposed off with no order as to costs.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.