Itxa/6/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. Best Ltd
High Court
09 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/6/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. Best Ltd
Date of order
09 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/6/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 v. Best Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
mlns
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-10
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s BSES Ltd. (Now known as Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.)
..Respondent.
Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2012
P.C. :-
1.The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal, reads thus:-
" Whether on fact and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,90,87,304/- on account of disallowance of claim of deduction of interest on borrowings for power generation project at Dahanu by holding it as revenue expenditure ignoring that the assessee had itself capitalized the expenses in its books of account and the same relates to the period prior to commencement of generation of electricity i.e. for the period from April, 1995 to June, 1995.?"
2.Perusal of the order of ITAT particularly para 23 shows that the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. Since the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R. JOSHI, 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.