Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 v. M/S.in-House Production Pvt.ltd
High Court
18 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 v. M/S.in-House Production Pvt.ltd
Date of order
18 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 v. M/S.in-House Production Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal shall stand dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.75 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax-11.... Appellant.
Vs.
M/s.In-House Production Pvt.Ltd.
...Respondent.
.....
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
18[th] January, 2010.
P.C.:
The appeal was admitted on the following substantial
question of law :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of Rs.1,17,36,416/- in respect of export made by the assessee in respect of programme which is not a good of merchandise?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that
the aforesaid question is covered against the Revenue and in favour
of the assessee by the judgment of the Full Bench in CIT vs. B.Suresh, (2009) 313 ITR 149. The question of law shall stand
answered accordingly against the Revenue. The appeal shall stand
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
( J.P.Devadhar, 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.
EaseValue