Itxa/324/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Ambejogai S.s.k. Ltd. Beed
High Court
17 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/324/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Ambejogai S.s.k. Ltd. Beed
Date of order
17 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/324/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Ambejogai S.s.k. Ltd. Beed, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
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.324 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.324 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holi Cross
High School, Cantonment,Aurangabad. ..Appellant.
V/s.
Ambejogai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Ltd. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ..Respondent.
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for appellant.
Mr.S.N.Inamdar with A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO
CORAM : F.I.REBELLOANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
1. This appeal is filed by Commissioner of Income Tax under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the ITAT dated 16/12/2005 relating
to the assessment year 1990-91.
2. The appeal is admitted on the following
question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in
holding that advances paid to harvesting and
transporting contractors was in the nature of business interest of the assessee society and thereby
deleting the disallowance of interest part, even though such advance was not made in the normal course of business and was made without any specific contractual obligation and out of borrowings on which
-= : 2 : =-
assessee is giving huge interest to financial
institutions. Thus, it was nothing but a diversion
of borrowed funds for non business purpose ? "
3. Counsel on both the sides agree that the
aforesaid question of law is answered against the
revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision
of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax
V/s. Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in Income
Tax Appeal No. 273 of 2007 decided on 17th September,
2007. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour
of the assessee and against the revenue.
4. Appeal disposed of accordingly with no order
as to costs.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.