THE COMMISSIONER OF I-TAX MUMBAI CITY-V, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GREAVES LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that both parties agreed that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 280 I.T.R. 643 (S.C.). This judgment was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the High Court discharged the rule and disposed of both applications. The specific reasoning of the Supreme Court in the Sandvik Asia Ltd. case, which led to this outcome, is not detailed in this judgment, but it established the principle that the claim for interest on interest was allowable. The operative direction was to dispose of the applications in line with the precedent.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed two applications before the Bombay High Court challenging orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The applications, numbered 151 and 152 of 1999, pertained to assessment years 1987-88 and 1986-87, respectively. The assessee in both cases was Greaves India Ltd. The core of the dispute was the ITAT's decision to allow the assessee's claim for payment of interest on interest. Both parties agreed that the issue was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing the assessee's claim for payment of interest on interest? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the claim for interest on interest. However, both the learned counsel for the petitioner (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) categorically stated that the issue involved in the applications is squarely covered by the judgment of the High Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2006) 280 I.T.R. 643 (S.C.) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.151 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.151 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.151 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.152 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.152 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.152 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Petitioner. V/s. Greaves India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan with for petitioner in both the applications. Mr. S.J.Mehta respondent in both the applications. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The above applications were admitted on the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee i.e. payment of interest on interest ? " 2. The above applications pertain to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1986-87 respectively. 3. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner CNR No : HCBM020040051999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:00
- = : 2 : = - and the respondent categorically states that the issue involved in the above applications is squarely covered by the Judgment of our Court in the case of Sandvik Sandvik Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2006) 280 I.T.R. 643 (S.C.) (2006) 280 I.T.R. 643 (S.C.) (2006) 280 I.T.R. 643 (S.C.) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. In view thereof, Rule stands discharged. 5. Both the applications are disposed of. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:00 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026