Tax Appeal v. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
High Court
02 Mar 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
Tax Appeal v. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Date of order
02 Mar 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Tax Appeal v. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing interest on funds borrowed for the purposes of making interest free advances to the harvesting and transport contractors, as deductible expenditure ?" 3.In the Tax Appeal No.
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 OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD
PER COURT :-
TAX APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2011THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVERSUSJAI AMBIKA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD
...
ASG for Appellant : Shri Alok SharmaAdvocate for Respondents : Shri D.J.Choudhary
...
CORAM : D. G. KARNIK & S. B. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated: March 02, 2012
...
1.Heard respective counsel.
2.The questions of law, that have been urged by Shri Sharma, learned ASG
are:-
"(1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the advances to Harvesting and Transport Contractors are in the nature of business advances ?
(2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing interest on funds borrowed for the purposes of making interest free advances to the harvesting and transport contractors, as deductible expenditure ?"
3.In the Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2010 ( The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.)vide our order dated 28.2.2012, we have answered both the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hencethisappealisdismissed.
( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D. G. KARNIK, 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.
EaseValue