Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jaipur v...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jaipur v. M/S.hindustan Salts Ltd., Jaipur

High Court 17 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jaipur v. M/S.hindustan Salts Ltd., Jaipur
Date of order
17 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jaipur v. M/S.hindustan Salts Ltd., Jaipur, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

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 FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.26/1989. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs. M/s.Hindustan Salts Ltd., Jaipur. Date of Order:- February 17, 2009. P R E S E N T HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF SHRI R.C. GANDHIHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.B. Mathur for the Revenue. None present for the respondent-Assessee.***** BY THE COURT:- This Reference has been made by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instanceof the Revenue under Section 256(1)/256(2) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to theassessment year 1980-81 seeking opinion ofthis Court on the following question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in holding that theinterest on delayed payment of income-taxwas allowable as a business expenditure? 2)Heard learned counsel for theapplicant-Revenue. 3)Learned counsel for the applicant-Revenue has relied on the judgment of thecourt delivered in the case title as GolchaProperties Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ofIncome-Tax : [1999] 209 ITR 80, wherein,similar question along with other fourquestions were referred for opinion of thecourt. The court while dealing with similaraforesaid question observed, as under:- “So far as question No.5 is concerned,the facts are that the assessee made aclaim while computing its income inrespect of interest charged by theDepartment under Section 139(8) of theIncome-tax Act for late filing of thereturn of the total income and alsointerest charged by the Department underSection 220 of the Act for not payingthe tax demanded by the Department. Itwas held that the said amount cannot besaid to have been paid for the purposeof carrying out the business of theassessee. This point is also covered bythe decision given by this court in thecase of the assessee in GolechaProperties (P) Ltd. V. CIT [1988] 171ITR 47”. anil We subscribe the view of the courttaken in Golcha Properties Pvt.Ltd. supra andanswered the Reference in favour of theRevenue. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (R.C. GANDHI),Actg.CJ.
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