Itxa/44/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. Ca Computer Assoociates India Pvt Ltd
High Court
09 Oct 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/44/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. Ca Computer Assoociates India Pvt Ltd
Date of order
09 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/44/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. Ca Computer Assoociates India Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.No order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
itxa44-11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.44 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
CA Computer Associates India Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012
P.C. :-
1.The appeal was admitted on 3[rd] July, 2012 on the following
question of law :-
“ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that interest u/s.234D is chargeable from A.Y. 2004-05 only and it could not be charged for earlier assessment years even though regular assessments for such earlier assessment are framed after 1[st] June, 2003 or refund is granted for those years after the said date ? ”
2.
Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question is
itxa44-11
covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.2012 of 2011] decided on 12th September, 2012. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.No order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.