Itxa/2178/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 20 Mumbai v. M/S. E-Jewellery
High Court
05 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2178/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 20 Mumbai v. M/S. E-Jewellery
Date of order
05 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2178/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 20 Mumbai v. M/S. E-Jewellery, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5Accordingly, 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.2178 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-20..Appellant.V/s.M/s. E-Jewellery..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013.
Heard.
2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2001-02 following questions have been raised for our consideration:-
(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of Section 80HHC, when such claim is not made by the assessee in its original return nor filed Chartered Accountant's Certificate required to be filed for claiming benefit under Section 80HHC?
(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the claim in respect of Section 80HHC by overlooking the provision of
(c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in restoring the issue under Section 10A to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh examination without deciding the issue whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A as claimed by the assessee?
3So far as Questions (a) & (b) are concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in the aforesaid two questions is covered in favour of the Respondent-Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Prithvi Brokers & Shareholders v/s. CIT reported in 208 Taxmann page 498. Thus, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law.
4So far as Question (c) is concerned, since the Tribunal has restored the issue of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for fresh examination to the file of the Assessing Officer, we see no reason to entertain Question (c).
5Accordingly, 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.