Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.birla International Private Limited, Mumbai

High Court 13 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.birla International Private Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
13 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
2000-2001, 2001-2002
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.birla International Private Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2363 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Birla International Private Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble i/by Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Pankaj R. Toprani for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 13[th] January, 2010. P.C. : 1.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue states that the appeal filed by the revenue against the common judgment and order of the tribunal dated 19[th] August 2008 has been dismissed on 15[th] December 2009 by a Division Bench of this Court (Income Tax Appeal No.2198 of 2009) in relation to assessment year 2000-2001. The present appeal which relates to assessment year 2001-2002 admittedly raises the same issue and is, therefore, covered against the revenue by the earlier judgment dated 15[th] December 2009. In any event, we find from the reasons recorded by the tribunal that the tribunal has accepted the case of the assessee that the company to whom loans were granted by the assessee had become sick and that there was a reference to the BIFR. The net worth of the company had became negative. The Board of Directors had, therefore, waived the interest by passing a resolution dated 3[rd] March 2000, which was before the close of the accounting period. In view of this finding of fact, we find that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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