In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Kesaria Commercial Enterprises Ltd, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal NO. 858 of 2000
The Commissioner of Income-tax .... Appellant.
vs.
M/s. Kesaria Commercial Enterprises Ltd. .. ... . ... Respondents
A. K. Kotangale with Dr. P. Daniel for AppellantNone for Respondents.
CORAM:S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
Date: 7/6/2005
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. Radhakrishnan J.)
1.Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.
2.By this appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the followingquestion of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theinterest levied under sections 217 and 139(8) in
re-assessment order by holding that theamended provisions of Section 215 and Section
139 relating to the definition of regular
assessment is not applicable to the case of the
assessee?”
3. We have perused the Order dated 27[th] October 1999 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein it is clearly held that in caseof re- assessment, there is no question of levying interest undersections 217 and 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, and the variousjudgments to that effect, referred to in the order of the Tribunal, oneof them being upheld by the Supreme Court. Under the aforesaidfacts and circumstances we find no substantial question of lawinvolved in the above. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
S. RADHAKRISHNAN J.
A. S. AGUIAR 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.