Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S.leela Scottish Lace Private Limited

High Court 28 Mar 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S.leela Scottish Lace Private Limited
Date of order
28 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
1995-96
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S.leela Scottish Lace Private Limited, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4263 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Leela Scottish Lace Private Limited..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 28[th] March, 2011. 1.Heard. Following questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. i)Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude net interest and not gross interest receipts for the purpose of application of Clause (baa) of Explanation to section 80HHC without taking into consideration Board's Circular No.621 dated 19-12-1991 ? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating the lease income relatable to land as business income and that of bungalow as Income from house property and not entire lease rentals as income from other sources. Revenue fairly states that similar question raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96, being Income Tax Appeal No.1817 of 2009, has been rejected by its order dated 18-09-2009. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. 3.The appeal is admitted on the first question. 4.Counsel for the parties state that the said question is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Asian Star Co. reported in 326 ITR 56. Accordingly, the first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5.The appeal is accordingly disposed off. No costs. (Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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