Itxa/417/2011 Of Thecommissioner Of Incometax-9,Mum v. M/S Wall Street Construction Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1462 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Vs.M/s.Wall Street Construction Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.J.S.Saluja for the Appellant.Mr.P.R.Toprani for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C.1. Heard the learned above Appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law: the learned Counsel for the parties. The A. Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the reopening of the assessmentby the AO was illegal and invalid, ignoringthe fact on record that it was done so afterissuing Notice u/s.148 and after obtainingapproval of the CIT, City-II, Mumbai asrequired under the statutory provisions ofSection 151(1) of the IT Act ?B. Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified innot appreciating the submissions of theRevenue that the assessee should have addedinterest income to the cost of the project andit should have been reflected in the value ofthe work-in-progress and that the Assessee iswrongly claiming deduction on this account andtherefore the income chargeable to tax escapedassessment? C. Was it not proper on the part of theHon’ble ITAT to have considered that in thefacts and circumstances of the case, the case is covered by Clause-B of Section 149(1) ofthe IT Act under which the AO is justified innot giving deduction of the interest amountu/s. 36(1)(iii) for the amount ofRs.23,83,661/-? 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the filed prior to the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench. 3.In view thereof, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)