Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. K...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kec International Ltd

High Court 15 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kec International Ltd
Date of order
15 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kec International Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question of law framed is as under : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) and directing the A.O. to allow interest u/s.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. KEC International Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. S.M. Shah with Mr. Sandeep Wasnik and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala i/by Shaunak Satpute & Co. for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008 P.C. P.C. . We are concerned with the assessment year 1983/84. The question of law framed is as under : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) and directing the A.O. to allow interest u/s. 214 of the I.T. Act as per the original assessment order?" . The appeal was preferred by the Revenue. The tribunal noted that Section 214 was substituted with ((-2-)) effect form 1.4.1985 and as per the notes of clauses, the amendment was to take effect from 1.4.85-86 and subsequent years. We are in agreement with that finding. It is therefore, clear that the amendment is prospective and did not apply to the earlier assessment years. Considering the above, the question of law would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed. (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