In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.jayneer Capital Private Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATE : 5[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-2006, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the matter to the file o...
Decision: 3.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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1018 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Jayneer Capital Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar i/by Ms.S.V. Bharucha for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ.
DATE : 5[th] February 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-2006,
following question of law has been proposed for our consideration.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the matter to the file of the AO for computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act as after relying the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mrg. Co. Limited V/s. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom) without appreciating the fact that reasonable disallowance under Section 14A was made out of the interest expenditure in the proportion of interest attributable to share investment related to exempt income ?”
2.
Since the Tribunal by the impugned order has restored the
matter to the file of the assessing officer to examine disallowance under Section 14A after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.