The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. V. S. Dempo And Company Pvt. Ltd
High Court
09 Apr 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. V. S. Dempo And Company Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
09 Apr 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. V. S. Dempo And Company Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal stands accordingly dismissed. ap/- M.
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 BOMBAY AT GOA
TAX APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2008
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus
V. S. DEMPO AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.
... Appellant... Respondent
Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate for the Respondent
-Coram:F. M. REIS &M. S. SANKLECHA, JJ.-Date:9th April, 2015
ORAL ORDER:
The above appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated23/06/2008 on the following substantial question of law:
(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the ITAT was justified in directing the A.O to re-compute deductionunder Section 80HHC by treating income from interest as businessincome and in holding that the same can neither be considered asreceipt covered under Explanation to Section 80HHC nor it can betreated as income from other sources?
2. During the course of hearing Mr. M. Naniwadekar, learnedcounsel for the respondent pointed out that the above question hasbeen answered in favour of the respondent-assessee's own case by Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30/09/2014passed in Tax Appeal nos. 64, 66, 69 and 70 of 2006. The appellant
does not dispute the above position.
3. In view of the above, for the reasons stated in the saidjudgment dated 30/9/2014, the substantial question of law isanswered in the affirmative in favour of the respondent-assessee andagainst the appellant-revenue.
4. The appeal stands accordingly dismissed.
ap/-
M. S. SANKLECHA, J.
F. M. REIS, 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.