The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. P. Leiner & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd
High Court
24 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. P. Leiner & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
24 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. P. Leiner & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.271 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax.
..Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. P. Leiner & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.A.R. Singh for the Respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &DATED : 24th March,2008.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
PC :
1. In so far as Question A as framed in Para 4 of theAppeal memo, the same is covered by the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income TaxVs. Laxmi Machinery Works in favour of the assessee.
Consequently, the question of law as framed would not
arise.
2. In so far as Question B is concerned, the same iscovered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mandideep Engg.and Pkg. Ind. Pvt. ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1(SC).
3. In so far as interest amount is concerned, thelearned Tribunal has restored the matter back to thefile of Assessing Officer with directions to decide theissue afresh after examining the nexus of interestpayment with interest receipts, in the light of theTribunal order in the case of Lal Sons Enterprises
(supra). Considering the above fact, the first part ofthe question of law as framed would not arise. So faras the later part of the question is concerned, theTribunal has held is to be the business income.Considering the finding of fact, the later part of the
question would not arise and consequently the appeal
dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO, 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.