In Itxa/1486/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-11, Mumbai v. Chandrakant A. Mehta, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Issue: The substantial question of law framed in all these appeals read as under : a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law the ITAT was justified directing the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s.80HHC in 2 respect of the exploitation of rights ?
Decision: All appeals, accordingly, stand disposed of for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment of Abdulgafar Nadiadwala (cited supra).
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.61 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax
City - 19 .. Appellant.
V/s.
Kapoor Exports .. Respondents.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1654 OF 2005
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1655 OF 2005
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1656 OF 2005
Commissioner of Income-tax-11 .. Appellant.
V/s.
Mr.Chandrakant A. Mehta .. Respondents.
Mr.A.S. Rao for the appellant.
Mr.Ajay Singh for the respondents.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2006.
P.C. :
Heard rival parties.
Perused appeals.
2. The substantial question of law framed in
all these appeals read as under :
a) Whether on the facts and the
circumstances of the case and law the ITAT
was justified directing the assessing
officer to allow deduction u/s.80HHC in
2
respect of the exploitation of rights ?
3. Both parties agree that the question of law
raised in all these appeals have been covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Abdulgafar A.
Nadiadwala V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
and Others [267 ITR 488 (Bom)]. Both parties pray
that all the appeals be disposed of in terms of the
said judgment of this Court and the above question
be answered accordingly.
4. Considering the joint prayer made by the
parties to the appeal, the question of law framed in
all these appeals is answered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue.
5. All appeals, accordingly, stand disposed of
for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment of
Abdulgafar Nadiadwala (cited supra). No order as to
costs.
(V.C. DAGA, 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.