Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.harisiddha Trading & Finance Ltd

High Court 29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.harisiddha Trading & Finance Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.harisiddha Trading & Finance Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question of law as framed in both these appeals is as under:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that while determining the ALV of the property u/s.23(1) the notional interest on interest free deposits can not be considered as a part...

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1799 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1..Appellant Vs. M/s.Harisiddha Trading & Finance Ltd..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1798 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1..Appellant Vs. M/s.Harisiddha Trading & Finance Ltd..Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.F.V. Irani with Mr. Atul K. Jasani, for the RespondentCORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: . The question of law as framed in both these appeals is as under:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that while determining the ALV of the property u/s.23(1) the notional interest on interest free deposits can not be considered as a part and parcel of the ALV." (-2-) 2. This issue had come up for consideration Commissioner before a learned Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.248 ITR 723. In that case an Appeal preferred by of Income Tax vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. 248 ITR 723. the Revenue for reasons set out therein was dismissed. Revenue aggrieved preferred S.L.P. in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition. Considering the above the question as framed would not arise. Consequently, Appeals dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (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