Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab
High Court
20 May 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab
Date of order
20 May 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
ITA No.121 of 2011
Date of decision: 20.5.2011
Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited
-----Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab)
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate with
Mr. D.K.Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ.
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) against the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench Amritsar dated21.10.2009 in ITA No.156/Asr/2009, claiming following substantialquestions of law:-
“A) Whether on the true and correct interpretation ofsection 234B the levy of interest is mandatory where thereis a conflict of decision and admitted that liability standspaid?
B) Whether on the true and correct interpretation ofsection 57(iii) of the claim of expenditure for earning theinterest is to be allowed under the head Income from othersources while computing the chargeable income?
C) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovision of section 80HHC read with section 80IA (9)
read with section 80IB (13) the Tribunal ahs erred inrestricting the claim of deduction under the Act?”
Learned counsel for the assessee states that he is not pressingQuestion ‘B’, while questions ‘A’ and ‘C’ are covered against the assesseeby earlier orders of this Court dated 16.7.2010 in ITR No.2 of 1996, TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. M/s Hero Cycles (P)Limited and dated 21.4.2011 in ITA No.371 of 2007, Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. M/s Davinder Exports.
In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)Acting Chief Justice
May 20, 2011‘gs’
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge
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.