Nma/38/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Mumbai
High Court
10 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/38/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Mumbai
Date of order
10 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/38/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Mumbai, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: The following two questions have been framed :- (A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in allowing the claim of interest and depreciation of assets taken on lease ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.38 OF 2009
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2926 OF 2008
The CIT-2 Mumbai )..Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd.Mumbai )..Respondents
----
Mr.Vimal Gupta @ P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.B.V.Jhaveri with Priti V.Shukla for respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 10.2.2009.
PC
1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned.
Office to register the appeal.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2926 OF 2008
1. Appeal pertains to assessment year 1998-99. The
following two questions have been framed :-
(A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in allowing the claim of interest and depreciation
of assets taken on lease ?
(B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding the assessee’s claim of realization of additional free sale quota of sugar as capital
receipt ?
: 2 :
2. In so far as question (A) is concerned, the
Tribunal has noted that for the assessment years
1993-94 and 1994-95 in the assessees own case the
Tribunal had held the transaction to be leased
transaction. No appeal has been preferred in
respect of the said years. In the light of that,
question (A) would not arise.
3. In so far as question (B) is concerned, the
matter has been sent to the file of CIT for deciding
the matter afresh. In the light of that, qustion
(B) would not arise. Consequently, appeal disposed
off.
(R.S.Mohite,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.