Itxa/1563/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S P.d. Warehousing Corpn
High Court
07 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1563/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S P.d. Warehousing Corpn
Date of order
07 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1563/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S P.d. Warehousing Corpn, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeal 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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1563 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. P.D. Warehousing Corporation
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b. D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2006-07, the following question of law have been raised for our consideration :-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.32,77,129/- made by the assessing officer u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that interest
paid on loans borrowed and utilized for payment to retiring partner is not admissible deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act ?”
2.Counsel for the parties state that similar question was raised in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years in an appeal filed by the revenue from the order of the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.5606 of 2010 and 5607 of 2010. This court did not entertain both the aforesaid appeals by an order dated 22[nd] June, 2012. For the reasons mentioned therein, we do not entertain the present appeal.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.