M/S.mondovi Pellets Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
17 Jul 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.mondovi Pellets Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
17 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.mondovi Pellets Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding on the facts of the case, that the interest of Rs.11,65,493/- and Rs.3,05,165/- for both the years was a revenue receipt liable to tax and did not go to reduce the capital cost of the project?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.687 OF 1987
M/s.Mondovi Pellets Ltd....Applicant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Karnataka -II..................Respondent
Mr. Ashok Kotangale for the Applicant.
Mr. S.N. Inamdar with Mr. A.K. Jasani for
Respondent
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
P.C.:
. At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal has
referred the following two questions:-
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in holding on the facts of the
case, that the interest of Rs.11,65,493/-
and Rs.3,05,165/- for both the years was a
revenue receipt liable to tax and did not go
to reduce the capital cost of the project?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the
establishment expenditure such as audit
(-2-)
fees, salary Directors" fees etc., interest
income;
for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the
Assessee.
2. At the hearing of this application on behalf
of the assessee the learned Counsel does not press
question No.1. Hence the said question is returned
unanswered.
3. In so far as question No.2 is concerned, our
attention is invited to the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in Chinai and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1994 ITR (206), 616.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent agrees that the
ratio of the judgment in Chinai & Co. (Supra) will
apply and the question referred needs to be answered
in the negative. In the light of that Question No.2
as referred to is answered in the negative in favour
of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference
disposed of accordingly.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.