The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd
High Court
11 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd
Date of order
11 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: In appeal two questions have been raised which are as under : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure made by A.O. invoking Section 14A of the Act?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 3032 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App
Versus
M/s. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. B.V. Jhaveri with Ms. Priti Shukla for
Respondent.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009P.C.
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009
P.C.
. Matter not on board. By the consent of the
parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.
. In appeal two questions have been raised which
are as under :
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and law, the
Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in deleting the
disallowance of interest expenditure made by
A.O. invoking Section 14A of the Act?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and law, the
Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing the
A.O. to recompute the deduction u/s.
80IA?"
. In so far a s question (a) is concerned, the
parties agree that the same is purely a finding of
fact. Consequently the said question as framed
would not arise.
. In so far as question (b), C.I.T.(A) has remanded
the matter to A.O. to recompute he deductions.
That fining has been confirmed by the I.T.A.T. In
our opinion, as there are two concurrent findings of
fact and no perversity is shown, the questions of
law would not arise. Appeal disposed of
accordingly.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,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.