Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate Along Withmr. Ronit Ghosh, Advocate v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar
High Court
16 Aug 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate Along Withmr. Ronit Ghosh, Advocate v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar
Date of order
16 Aug 2022
Assessment year(s)
1992-93
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate Along Withmr. Ronit Ghosh, Advocate v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, the High Court (2022) decided the matter under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act.
Issue: (b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the taxation of interest received amounting to Rs.17,35,985/- for the assessment year 1992-93?” 2.
Decision: The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Order No.
06.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.51 of 2006
….
Appellant
GKW Ltd.
Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate along withMr. Ronit Ghosh, Advocate
-versus-
….Respondent
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar
Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
16.08.2022
1. This Court by its order dated 23[rd] March 2017 framed the following questions in the present appeal by the Assessee
“(a) Whether and in any event, the Assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 57 (iii) of the Act in respect of the interest expenditure incurred in respect of the funds which gave rise to interest income assessable under Section 56?
(b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the taxation of interest received amounting to Rs.17,35,985/- for the assessment year 1992-93?”
2. In view of the decision rendered today in ITA No. 50 of 2006, by the same Assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92, the aforementioned two questions framed by this Court in the present appeal which is for AY 1992-93 are answered as under:
S.K. Guin
(i) Question (b) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
(ii) In view of the answer to Question (b), Question (a) need not be answered.
3. The impugned order of the ITAT and the corresponding orders of the CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer are accordingly set aside to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
4. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
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.