Engineering Co.(P) Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner
High Court
01 Aug 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Engineering Co.(P) Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner
Date of order
01 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Engineering Co.(P) Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal (L) No.255 of 2003
CIT Bombay .. .. Appellant
v/s.
ICICI Bank Ltd. .. .. Respondent
Mr.A.M.Kotangale for appellant.
Ms.Aarti Vissanji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for res.
----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : 1st August 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Kotangale in support of this
Appeal. Ms.Vissanji appears for the respondent.
2. The question sought to be raised is that
the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have treated
the dividend and income from house property as
part of business activities and should not have
granted deduction on that ground. This question
has been covered by a a number of Division Bench
judgments of this Court including one in Protos
Protos
Engineering Co.(P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner
Engineering Co.(P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax reported in 203 CTR 445 wherein it
of Income Tax reported in 203 CTR 445
has been held that the interest, rent and dividend
form part of profits of eligible business for the
purpose of working out deduction. There is no
reason to entertain this Appeal. It is,
therefore, dismissed.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
-2-
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, 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.