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)
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.