Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Mack Hosiery (Regd

High Court 01 Dec 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Mack Hosiery (Regd
Date of order
01 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Mack Hosiery (Regd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: The revenue has claimed the following substantial question oflaw: “Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income taxAppellate Tribunal was justified in holding that duty drawbackof Rs.15,04,103/- was `profit derived from industrialundertaking' entitled to deduction u/s 80IB of I.T.Act, 1961?

Decision: In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 618 of 2007Date of Decision: 1.12.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus ...Petitioner Mack Hosiery (Regd.) ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Hemant Gupta, J. The revenue has claimed the following substantial question oflaw: “Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income taxAppellate Tribunal was justified in holding that duty drawbackof Rs.15,04,103/- was `profit derived from industrialundertaking' entitled to deduction u/s 80IB of I.T.Act, 1961? The said question of law is said to have arisen out of the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 30.6.2006in ITA No.162/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02. Learned counsel for the parties admit that the question raised isconcluded by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 ITR 218(SC) in favour ofthe revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Substantialquestion of law is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. ( Hemant Gupta )Judge 1.12.2011Meenu (G.S. Sandhawalia)Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan