Case Law › High Court › Ita/86/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Ita/86/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Motor Industries Co Ltd

High Court 26 Sep 2012 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · karnataka_bng_old

Parties

Date of order

26 Sep 2012

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/86/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Motor Industries Co Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that out of the sum of Rs.2,70,18,366/- 90% cannot be excluded for the purpsoe of computation of deduction under Section 80HHT of the Act in accordance with Explanation (1) to clause (baa) of Section 80HHT of the Act as the same would not rec...

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is 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 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.86/2007 BETWEEN : 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12-1, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS ( By Sri. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/S MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO LTD HOSUR ROAD, ADUGODI BANGALORE. ..RESPONDENT ( By Sri. M/S KING & PARTRIDGE ) I.T.A. Is filed u/S.260-A of I.T.Act 1961 arising out of order dated 06-07-2006 passed in ITA No.2665/Bang/2004 passed by the ITAT, Bangalore This ITA coming on for hearing this day, K.SREEDHAR RAO, J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT In view of the judgment of this Court in ITA No.28/2005 (DD 4.8.2010), the question of law, which is framed as under, is held against the revenue. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that out of the sum of Rs.2,70,18,366/- 90% cannot be excluded for the purpsoe of computation of deduction under Section 80HHT of the Act in accordance with Explanation (1) to clause (baa) of Section 80HHT of the Act as the same would not receive in the course of business? Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Sd/-)JUDGE (Sd/-)JUDGE bkm.

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.