The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. M/S.pranik Shipping & Services Limited
High Court
17 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. M/S.pranik Shipping & Services Limited
Date of order
17 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai v. M/S.pranik Shipping & Services Limited, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 1.The question of law raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Decision: The appeal is thus 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.236 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Pranik Shipping & Services Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P. Murlidharan iwth Mr.Balasaheb Yewale i/by Rajesh SHah & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 17[th] January, 2011.
1.The question of law raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal, particularly para-7 shows that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessing officer after detailed enquiry allowed the interest on term loan. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting was entitled to claim interest expenditure accrued within the year irrespective of the fact that necessary entries have not been passed in the books of account. The Tribunal has held that the decision taken by the
assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous and, therefore, invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was uncalled for.
2.The decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, 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.