The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Narain K.agnani
High Court
27 Feb 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Narain K.agnani
Date of order
27 Feb 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Narain K.agnani, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.43 OF 1999
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.Narain K.Agnani
..Applicant
..Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevaa for the Applicant.Mr.Bharat Gandhi for the Respondent.
P.C.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY,2007
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The above Application was filed seeking reference on
the following substantial question of law:
"Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was rightin law in directing the Assessing Officer toallow interest paid on borrowed capital aspart of cost if it pertained to the periodprior to acquisition and as a revenueexpenditure thereafter and in furtherdirecting the Assessing Officer to allowinterest in both the situation as an allowablededuction?"2.We have perused the order of the Tribunaldated 13th July,1998 refusing to refer the same and inthe said order, the Tribunal had observed in
paragraph-2 of its original order, which reads asunder:-
3.
A perusal of the same indicates that the above
question of law arises out of a finding of fact. In
view thereof, the above application stands dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.