Itxa/101/2003 Of Swan Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai
High Court
12 Jun 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/101/2003 Of Swan Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai
Date of order
12 Jun 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/101/2003 Of Swan Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in restricting the relief u/s.90/91 of the Act to 50% of the overseas taxes paid as against 100% claimed by the Appellant Company ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY
ORDINARY
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.11 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.11 OF 2006
Tata Infotech Ltd. ..Appellant.
V/s.
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax ..Respondent.
Mr.B.H. Patil, senior advocate i/b. Aasifa Khan for
appellant.
Mr.A.D.Kango for respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2006.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2006.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard. Admit on the following substantial
questions of law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT was right in holding that income exempted under section 10A
of the Act should be reduced from the profits
of the eligible business while computing deduction u/s.32AB of the Act ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in restricting the relief u/s.90/91 of the Act to 50% of the overseas taxes paid as against 100%
claimed by the Appellant Company ?
Mr.A.D. Kango waives service on behalf of
the department.
To be heard along with ITA No.545 of 2001.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.