The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.tolaram & Company
High Court
18 Aug 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.tolaram & Company
Date of order
18 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.tolaram & Company, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3546 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Tolaram & Company..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 18[th] August, 2011.
1.Four questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. Counsel for the parties state that the first three questions are already
answered against the Revenue by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Brahma Associates reported in (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom). Accordingly, first three questions raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained.
2.As regards fourth question is concerned, the interest paid by the
assessee in respect of abandoned project was allowed as a revenue expenditure by following its decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The appeals filed by the Revenue
against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 have been rejected under Rule 986 of the Original Side Rules and no steps have been taken to restore those appeals. Thus, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 have attained finality.
3.In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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.