Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1838/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1838/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Mumbai v. M/S Jindal Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. , Mumbai

High Court 17 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1838/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Mumbai v. M/S Jindal Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. , Mumbai
Date of order
17 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
1996-97, 2000-01
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1838/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Mumbai v. M/S Jindal Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. , Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limini 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1838 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. J.S. Saluja for appellant.Mr. A.K. Jasani for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and learned counsel for the respondent The issue sought to be raised in the appeal is considered by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order, which reads as under:- " Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the order of the learned CIT as well as the submissions made by both the sides. The proposition canvassed by the learned DR is that, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. V/s. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC), the interest income for AY 1996-97 was assessable as income from other sources and not business income and consequently, the deduction of interest receivable written of granted by the AO in AY 2000-01 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. " 2.Having gone through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view and no fault can be found with the same. No substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan