In Itxa/1167/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 ,Mumbai v. M/S Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Issue: DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. :- 1.The appeal was admitted on 10 August, 2009 on the following substantial question of law :- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in treating the interest income on fixed deposit receipt as business income as agai...
Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2010
P.C. :-
1.The appeal was admitted on 10 August, 2009 on the following substantial question of law :-
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in treating the interest income on fixed deposit receipt as business income as against income from 'other sources' ? "
2.The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 3 of its order dated 4 April, 2007 that the only dispute in relation to this ground is whether the interest claimed by the assessee should be assessed
as business income or income from other sources. In terms of the judgment of this Court dated 19 April, 2010 in Income Tax Appeal No1019 of 2007 {The Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. M/s. Swani Spice Mills P. Limited}, the aforesaid question of law stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal has further observed that the issue is academic for the reasons more specifically set out in paragraph 3 of its impugned judgment. We consider it appropriate, having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal to remand the proceedings back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, 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.