Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Nahar...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd

High Court 09 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd
Date of order
09 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: No.1663/Chandi/1991 for theassessment year 1987-88 proposing to raise following substantialquestion of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld.

Decision: Accordingly, the substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the revenue and the appeal is allowed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.151 of 1999 Date of decision: 9.11.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counselfor the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate withMs. Shaweta Malhotra, Advocatefor the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 5.5.1999 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.1663/Chandi/1991 for theassessment year 1987-88 proposing to raise following substantialquestion of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholdingOrders of the Ld. CIT(A) that Deduction u/s 80-I isadmissible even on the Export Incentive and CashCompensatory Assistance on Export even though the receipt of which is not attributable to conduct of anyManufacturing Activities by the Respondent.” Learned counsel for the assessee does not disputethat the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by judgment ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court inCIT v. Sterling Foods(1999) 237ITR 579. Accordingly, the substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the revenue and the appeal is allowed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 09, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) 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