Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kiduja Industries Ltd
High Court
25 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kiduja Industries Ltd
Date of order
25 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kiduja Industries Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: If that be so, the said provision does not have retrospective effect.” In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1695 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
Kiduja Industries Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.Ram Upadhyay for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
P.C.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 25TH AUGUST, 2009
DATE :
Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal.
2.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised in the appeal.
a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in allowing service charges as income from business instead of house property ?
b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in remanding back the issue to Ld.A.O. for reworking the allowance of business expenditure after bifurcating receipts on account of service charges to be assessed as income from house property and business income ?
c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in disallowing the charging of interest by A.O.u/s.234(D) ?
d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in setting aside the order of Ld. CIT (A) ?
3.So far as question Nos.(a), (b) and (d) are concerned, the Tribunal has rightly remanded back the matter keeping question open for adjudication by the Assessing Officer. So far as question No.(c) is concerned, the appeal is liable to be dismissed since the said issue is squarely covered by our order dated 15th April, 2009 passed inITXA No.198 of 2009 CIT Vs. M/s.Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.,wherein it is held that “Section 234D of the I.T.Act came on statute book w.e.f. 1[st] June, 2003. If that be so, the said provision does not have retrospective effect.” In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.