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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Radhakrishna Ramnarain

High Court 14 Aug 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Radhakrishna Ramnarain
Date of order
14 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Radhakrishna Ramnarain, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1) The question of law as prayed on behalf of the Revenue is as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the onus of establishing nexus between the borrowings and the interest free advances given is on the assessee to establish and not on the department?" 2) From...

Decision: Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant Vs. M/s Radhakrishna Ramnarain .... Respondents Ltd. Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, & . J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C. 1) The question of law as prayed on behalf of the Revenue is as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the onus of establishing nexus between the borrowings and the interest free advances given is on the assessee to establish and not on the department?" 2) From the above order of Tribunal, we find that for the year 1982-1983, dis-allowances has not been challenged by Revenue. The Tribunal also 2 noted that the amounts advanced were the same except for additional sum of Rs.90,000/-. 3) Once the Assessing Officer in the year 1982- 1983 have made dis-allowances in that year and revenue has not challenged the same, in our opinion it was not open to the Revenue for the subsisting years to have acted otherwise. Considering the above in our opinion, the question of law for the reasons set out by the Tribunal would not arise. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)( F.I. REBELLO, J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR, 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