Case LawHigh Court › Mr. A v. By Consent, Notice Of Motion Is...

Mr. A v. By Consent, Notice Of Motion Is Made Absolute In Terms Of

High Court 14 Feb 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mr. A v. By Consent, Notice Of Motion Is Made Absolute In Terms Of
Date of order
14 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mr. A v. By Consent, Notice Of Motion Is Made Absolute In Terms Of, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal.

Issue: 2The only question raised in this Appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the interest claimed by the assessee.

Decision: In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
KJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.235 OF 2011 ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2394 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Mumbai )City-16, MumbaiVs.Shri Mangal Bhansali )..Appellants )..Respondent ---- Mr. A. V. Shivsharan for the appellants. Mr. J.R.Shah for the respondent. ---- CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 14/2/2011. PC 1By consent, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause-(a). Notice of Motion disposed off. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2394 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Mumbai )City-16, Mumbai)..AppellantsVs.Shri Mangal Bhansali )..Respondent ---- Mr. A. V. Shivsharan for the appellants. Mr. J.R.Shah for the respondent. ---- CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 14/2/2011. PC 1Mentioned. Not on board. By consent, taken up for admission. 2The only question raised in this Appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the interest claimed by the assessee. The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal is that the assessee has established the nexus of the borrowed funds with the investment in shares and accordingly assessee is entitled to the deduction of the interest amount. The CIT(A) in paragraph 2.1 of his order has recorded that the similar interest claim of the assessee has been allowed in the past. Nothing is brought to our notice that the earlier view taken by the Tribunal which has attained finality is erroneous or contrary to law. In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan