The C.i.t. Mumbai v. M/S Jay Construction Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2006 The C.I.T. Mumbai. .. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s Jay Construction Co. .. ..Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances,Court ’s : orders or directions & : Prothonotary’s orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr N.A. Kazi, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms Beena Pillai i/b D.M. Harish & Co.Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above appeal is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer not to assess the interest amount of Rs. 12,45,922/- earned on temporary deposits during the construction period ignoring the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT 227 ITR 170 and CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 39,58,508/- under Section 36 (i) (iii) of Income-tax Act, especially, when there was no such claim before the CIT (A) and the figure of Rs. 39,58,508/- is purely imaginary? 3. We have perused the Tribunal’s Order dated 17.10.2005. In view of the reasons stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Fertilizers Ltd vs. Tuticorin Alkali & Fertilizers Ltd vs.CIT (227 ITR 172) and the judgment of this CIT (227 ITR 172) Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramount CIT vs. ParamountPremises (P) Ltd (190 ITR 259), we do not find Premises (P) Ltd (190 ITR 259) any error in the order of the Tribunal. 4. In view of the above, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. We do not find any case made out for admission of the above appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J.) (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)