Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. M/S.metal Gems

High Court 16 Sep 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. M/S.metal Gems
Date of order
16 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. M/S.metal Gems, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: P.C. : DATE : 16th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2659 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Metal Gems..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 16th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal. 2.In the assessment order relating to assessment year 2002-03, the assessing officer had granted relief under Section 80HHC by excluding the interest income treated as income from other sources. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax by invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that interest receipts on account of M/s.Elpro International Limited, requires reconciliation and granting of 80IB deduction in respect of job charges requires further examination. 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that since the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 5.In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, because, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer had raised the query relating to interest on belated payment and job work charges and after receiving full particulars and on application of mind allowed the claim of the assessee. Moreover, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that the view taken by the assessing officer was a possible view and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Moreover, the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax is not based on any material on record and in fact, the Commissioner of Income Tax has directed the assessing officer to further investigate into the matter and if satisfied allow the claim of the assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. Tated, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, 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