The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S.jatin & Co
High Court
19 Mar 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S.jatin & Co
Date of order
19 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. M/S.jatin & Co, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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 BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-17. Vs.
...Appellant.
M/s.Jatin & Co....Respondent.
....
Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Atul K.Jasani for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
March 19, 2010.
P.C. :
The appeal by the Revenue was admitted by an order dated 2[nd ] September 2008, on the following question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in holding that only net interest i.e. gross interest received minus interest paid should be taken into account in computation of deduction under section 80HHC?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Assessee agreed that the question would
be covered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee by the judgment of this Court delivered today in CIT vs. Asian Star
Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.200 of 2009). The question is
accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the reasons stated in the judgment. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
( J.P.Devadhar, 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.