Case LawHigh Court › The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.l...

The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd

High Court 04 Mar 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd
Date of order
04 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Revenue has come in appeal on the following two questions :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in allowing the disallowance of interest paid to trustees of M/s.Bhartiya Vidhya bhavan despite it can n...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.151 OF 2009 The CIT-3, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Shanudeep Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mrs.V.B.Patel for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.3.2009. PC 1. Revenue has come in appeal on the following two questions :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in allowing the disallowance of interest paid to trustees of M/s.Bhartiya Vidhya bhavan despite it can not be said as business expenditure ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in allowing the deduction in respect of investment allowance on account of increase in the value of plant and machinery consequent upon the exchange fluctuation ? 2. In so far as question-(A) is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that CIT(A) had allowed the appeal for the A.Y.1987-88. The revenue has not : 2 : preferred appeal against the said order of the Tribunal. That being the case, question-(A) would not arise. 3. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the submission on behalf of revenue was that factually the difference in the rate of fluctuation had not been paid and the entries in the books was purely notional. 4. On behalf of the assessee, learned Counsel makes a statement that in fact the amount has been paid. Learned Counsel for the revenue accepted this statement. Considering the above, question of law as framed, would not arise. 5. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan