Itxa/1410/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Atos Origin 9India ) Pvt. Ltd
High Court
11 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1410/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Atos Origin 9India ) Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
11 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1410/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Atos Origin 9India ) Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3In view of the above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8,Mumbai..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Atos Origion (India) Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. R. Murlidhar with Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 11[th] JANUARY, 2013.
In this Appeal for Assessment Year 2005-2006, the Revenue
has raised the following question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the expenses reduced from the figure of export turnover should also be excluded from the figure of total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A & 10B of the IT Act 1961 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. ignoring the fact that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and in law?”.
2Counsel for the parties state that the above question of law stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 175. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this appeal.
3In view of the above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,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.