Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/288/2004 Of Superb Minerals India P...

Itxa/288/2004 Of Superb Minerals India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-I, Nashik

High Court 07 Feb 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/288/2004 Of Superb Minerals India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-I, Nashik
Date of order
07 Feb 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/288/2004 Of Superb Minerals India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-I, Nashik, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer determining total income of the Appellant at Rs.

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. 288 OF 2004 Superb Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Nashik & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Appellant Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the Respondents CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 07.02.2005 DATED : 07.02.2005 DATED : 07.02.2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.9.2003. The above Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer determining total income of the Appellant at Rs. 2,67,892/- by treating the gross interest income received on Fixed Deposit Receipts as ‘Income from other Sources’? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer determining total direct and indirect costs at Rs. 98,08,304/- and not Rs. 95,53,387/- as worked out by the Appellant in computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the interest income/expenditure in respect of a business are to be considered on net basis and not on gross basis as has been done by the Assessing Officer in the case of the Appellant?" The learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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