Itxa/129/2005 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/129/2005 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/129/2005 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: The appeal, therefore, devoid of any merit is 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.129 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.129 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.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008.
DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008.
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:-
4a) 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 ?
b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal is right in
holding that cash deposited in the bank
account is explained and, therefore, it should
not be treated as unexplained cash credit and
should not be added to the income of the
respondent ?
2. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98.
3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal.
The finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No.7
is that the assessee is in the business of financing is
not dispute by the revenue. The dispute of the revenue
is against the non charging of interest on some of the
interest bearing amounts advanced to some concerns. A
finding is accordingly recorded by the Tribunal in this
connection.
4. The interest free loans were given by the
assessee as a prudent businessman with certain
commercial and business purpose in mind. The interest
bearing funds in the present case has been used for the
purpose of business. A businessman cannot be expected
to and does not make profit out of each and every
transaction entered into by him.
5. Thereafter, the Tribunal has given a finding
that the interest free advances of Rs.1,54,20,945/-
given represents only 8.8% of loans aggregating to
Rs.17,52,67,529/-. The above finding is a merely a
finding of fact.
6. As regards the second question, during the
- = : 3 : = -
course of assessment it was found that the assessee had
deposited cash of Rs.7,25,000/- on 5th August, 1996 and
the explanation given by the assessee was that it was
advance against the sale of air conditioning units
received from different parties. The Tribunal after
considering the explanation and confirmation has given
a finding to the effect that the ledger accounts of the
parties in the books of accounts have duly been
confirmed by mentioning "We hereby confirm the above
statement". The above findings are merely findings of
fact and there are no substantial questions of law
involved. The appeal, therefore, devoid of any merit
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(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.