The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasingrespondents& Financial Services Ltd
High Court
23 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasingrespondents& Financial Services Ltd
Date of order
23 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasingrespondents& Financial Services Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.The second question which is now reframed is -whether interest of Rs.76,96,74,525/- shown asinterest on these transactions was in fact an interest on loan transaction.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 173 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-10,AppellantMumbai.
Vs.
M/s. Infrastructure LeasingRespondents& Financial Services Ltd.
Mkr. J. S. Saluja, for the Appellant.
Mr. Atul Jasnani & P. C. Tripathi, for theRespondent.
PC :-
1.The matter before the Tribunal was - Whetherthe interest on debenture bonds was chargeable asinterest. It is submitted that this question iscovered and concluded by the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Corporation Bank reported in [2007] 295 ITR (SC) 193,and as such the Revenue Appeal cannot be entertained.
2.The second question which is now reframed is -whether interest of Rs.76,96,74,525/- shown asinterest on these transactions was in fact an interest
on loan transaction. This question, as rightly pointedby the learned counsel for the respondent, is a merelyquestion of fact and there is a positive finding ofthe authorities below including the Tribunal,observing that "once it has held by me that theappellant company had entered into genuine leasingtransaction and not in "loan transactions", there isno justification for inclusion of Rs.76,96,74,525 tothe chargeable interest." There is a finding that thetransaction was leasing transaction and not a loantransaction. Thereforefore, we feel that the secondquestion, reframed cannot be gone into. Appeal isaccordingly dismissed.
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.