Itxa/128/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. M/S. S. D. Investments And Trading Co
High Court
01 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/128/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. M/S. S. D. Investments And Trading Co
Date of order
01 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/128/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-19, Mumbai v. M/S. S. D. Investments And Trading Co, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.129 of 2005, where similar issue has been raised and for the same reasons recorded therein, this appeal also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.128 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.128 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.S.D.Investment & Trading Co. ..Respondent.
Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant.
Mr.Ramesh C.Sahu i/b. S.K.Shrivastav & Co. for
respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent. In the above
appeal, the revenue is seeking to raise the following
substantial questions of law:-
" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that
the notional interest should not be charged in spite
of the fact that the borrowed funds were utilized
for non business purposes ?
2. The relevant assessment year is 1998-99.
3. In view of the order passed today in Income
Tax Appeal No.129 of 2005, where similar issue has been
raised and for the same reasons recorded therein, this
appeal also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN)
(DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.