Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an.....1. heard learned counsel for the rival parties. all office objections are overruled. the appeal taken up for hearing on admission by consent of the parties.2. the issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the interest received on overdue payment in business is deductible under section 80hhc of the income-tax act, 1961. this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of cit v. govinda choudhury and sons : [1993] 203 itr 881 and also of this court in the case of cit v. bhansali engineering polymars ltd. : [2008] 306 itr 194 (bom).3. in this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. no order as to costs.