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.)
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.