In Itxa/2300/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 12 Mumbai v. Anish Kumar And Co, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in directing to reduce 10% of the export incentive from the indirect cost for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2300 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Anish Kumar & Co.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in directing to reduce 10% of the export incentive from the indirect cost for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The ITAT relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hero Exports V/s. CIT reported in [2007] 295 ITR 454 (S.C.) has allowed the claim of the assessee. We see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, 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.
EaseValue