Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v...

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.)
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