In Itxa/421/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. M/S Cifco Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appeal seeks to raise the following question of law :- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and directing the assessing officer to delete the interest charged on the interest free advances diverted to...
Decision: In the aforesaid view of the matter, for the reasons recorded therein, we also dismiss this appeal in limini for want of substantial question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.421 OF 2009
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.421 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.CIFCO Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr.S.G.Dalal for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the rival
parties. The appeal seeks to raise the following
question of law :-
" Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Tribunal was
justified in law in allowing the appeal of
the assessee and directing the assessing
officer to delete the interest charged on
the interest free advances diverted to
group concerns ? "
2. The question sought to be raised in this
appeal was also raised in Income Tax Appeal No.1355 of
2008, ITXA No.107 of 2009, ITXA No.201 of 2009 and
ITXA (LOD) No.1030 of 2009. By a reasoned order all
these appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, for
the reasons recorded therein, we also dismiss this
appeal in limini for want of substantial question of
law.
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.
EaseValue