The Cit-8, Mumbai v. M/S.standard Tin Works Pvt.ltd
High Court
13 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-8, Mumbai v. M/S.standard Tin Works Pvt.ltd
Date of order
13 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-8, Mumbai v. M/S.standard Tin Works Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Considering the above, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
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.1194 OF 2008
The CIT-8, Mumbai )..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Standard Tin Works Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents
----
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
appellant.
None for the respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 13.3.2009.
PC
1. Revenue is in appeal on the following question
. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in
allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that
interest on borrowed amount for expansion of the
business during the accounting period 2000-01 is an
allowable deduction ?
2. The Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact
that considering the accounting year 2000-2001, the
amendment which came in to effect from 1.4.2003
would not be applicable and consequently the
assessee would be entitled for allowance of interest
on borrowed amount for expansion of assessee’s
business. We may clarify that in fact the amendment
came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2004, however, that
would not make any difference in the case of the
assessee.
: 2 :
3. The issue has no longer res-integra considering
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Core Health Care
Ltd., reported in 298 ITR 0194.
4. Considering the above, there is no merit in this
appeal which is accordingly 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.