Case LawHigh Court › Itr/1/2002 Of Standard Batteries Ltd. Mu...

Itr/1/2002 Of Standard Batteries Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Ii

High Court 27 Apr 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itr/1/2002 Of Standard Batteries Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Ii
Date of order
27 Apr 2018
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itr/1/2002 Of Standard Batteries Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Ii, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

Decision: Question No.(ii) :- In the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the applicant assessee.4.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 01 of 2002 M/s. Standard Batteries Ltd.Vakola, Santacruz (East)Mumbai – 400 055 .. Applicant v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiCity II, Mumbai .. Respondent Ms. Aarti Sathe with Mr. Rajesh Poojary i/b Mint and Confreres for the applicant Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.J. DATED : 27[th] APRIL, 2018 P.C. :- 1.This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) seeks our opinion on the following two questions of law. (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that the excise duty paid by the assessee is not to be excluded from the total turnover for purposes of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that the assessee had acquired the ownership rights in the technical know-how included in the agreement in contra-distinction to lease of rights in such know-how and accordingly the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35AB as against under Section 37(1) of the Act ? 2.This Reference relate to Assessment Year 1987-88. 3. For the reasons recorded in our order dated 27[th] April, 2018 passed in Income Tax Reference No.13 of 2001 raising same questions as referred to us in this Reference, we answer the questions raised for our opinion as under :- -Question No.(i) :In the negative i.e. in favour of the applicant assessee and against the respondent Revenue. Question No.(ii) :- In the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the applicant assessee.4.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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