M/S Avery Cycles Limited © v. Rajesh Bindal)J
High Court
17 Jan 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Avery Cycles Limited © v. Rajesh Bindal)J
Date of order
17 Jan 2017
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Avery Cycles Limited © v. Rajesh Bindal)J, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: 479/Chandi/2000 for the the assessment year 1998-99:- “Whether on the facts and in law, Hon'bleITAT was legally justified in deleting thedisallowance of Rs.
Decision: Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYAN AAT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 459 of 2006 (O&M)Date of decision: 17.1.2017|
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-lII
.. Appellant
M/s Avery Cycles Limited ©
VS
.. Respondent
Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh BindalHon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
Present:Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate, tor the appellant.Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal)J.
The revenue has filed the present appeal raising the followingsubstantial question of law arising out of the order dated 30.5.2005 passedby the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh,in ITA No. 479/Chandi/2000 for the the assessment year 1998-99:-
“Whether on the facts and in law, Hon'bleITAT was legally justified in deleting thedisallowance of Rs. 5,92,27,493/- made onaccount of interest on money borrowed forpurchase and installation of plant and machineryin new H.R. Unit, prior to the period ofcommencement of production, ignoring the factthat new H.R. Unit 1s located at a distance of 10KM from the existing unit and was not inexistence earlier and is producing new product?”
ITA No. 459 of 2006 (O&M)
_)-
Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that in viewof judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inDeputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Ahmedabad vs M/s. Core Health Care Limited,(2008) 293I.T.R. 194, where similar question has been answered against the revenue,nothing survives in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal )Judge|
17.11.201VS
Whether speaking/ reasonedWhether Reportable
(Harinder Singh Sidhu)Judge|Yes/NoYes/No
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.