The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.jindal Coated Steel Private Limited, Mumbai
High Court
26 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.jindal Coated Steel Private Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
26 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai v. M/S.jindal Coated Steel Private Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
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 JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2004 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Jindal Coated Steel Private Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.Mr.Sameer G. Dalal for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 26[th] JUNE, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused Appeal.
2.The issue sought to be raised with respect to the interest earned on margin money deposited in the bank during pre-operative business period is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, 243 ITR 2 (SC). The Tribunal has also relied upon the very same judgment.
3.In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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.
EaseValue