Itxa/398/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-Vii, Bombay v. M/S Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd

-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.398 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.398 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao for appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with B.D.Damodar i/b. M/s.Kango & Co. for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2005. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr.Rao in support of the appeal. Mr. Mistry appears for the respondent. The appeal seeks to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal in respect of the assessment of year 1988-89. For the assessment year in question, the assessing officer gave credit to the TDS certificates furnished by the assessee but while granting refund declined to grant interest under section 214 on the TDS amount. On the appeal by the assessee, C.I.T. (A) granted interest under section 214 on the TDS amount. That order has been upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In our opinion, the -= : 2 : =- decision of the Tribunal is correct when the provision of section 214 is examined. Mr.Mistry drew our attention to the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Addl. Commissioner of Income TaxV/s. Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. reported in 115I.T.R. 449 which also refers to the similar issue. Court in the case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. I.T.R. 449 The question No.2 sought to be raised, therefore, does not arise. 2. As far as the question No.1 is concerned, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of C.I.T.V/s. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. reported in 261I.T.R. 275 holding that MODVAT credit available to the assessee manufacturing goods with duty paid raw materials is not an income liable to be taxed. This being the position, even question No.1 sought to be raised is also covered. 3. Appeal stands dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)