In Tax City-3 v. M/S Standard Industries Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal No. 721 of 2002
The Commissioner of Income
Tax City-3 ..Appellant
vs.
M/s Standard Industries Ltd. ..Respondent’’
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Ms.Vasanti B.Patel for respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
4th September,2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The above appeal was admitted on 9th September, 2004
on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether another facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was justified in law in
holding that interest under section 217 of the
Income Tax Act is not leviable when income is
computed under section 115-J of the Income Tax Act?
3. Both the learned Counsel for the appellant and
-2-
respondent categorically state that the Tribunal had
relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case
of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
reported in 243 ITR 519 which judgment was carried in
appeal by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs.
Kwality Biscuits Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 434 (SC) has
upheld the view taken by Karnataka High Court.
4. In the light of the principles laid down in the said
judgment we answer the aforesaid question of law in
negative in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN 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.