Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/3770/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/3770/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 Mumbai v. Rainbow Construction

High Court 18 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3770/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 Mumbai v. Rainbow Construction
Date of order
18 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/3770/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 Mumbai v. Rainbow Construction, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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.3770 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3771 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Mumbai ..... Appellants V/s.M/s.Rainbow Construction..... Respondents ---- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellants. Mr.R.Murlidharan @ Mr.Balasaheb Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Co.for the respondents. ---- CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE :18/1/ 2011 P.C. 1.The short question raised in these appeals is "Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest income was the business income”? 2Admittedly, in the earlier Assessment Years as well as in the subsequent Assessment years the interest income earned by the assessee has been assessed as business income. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,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