Itxa/2433/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 20 Mumbai v. Aristo Exports
High Court
04 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2433/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 20 Mumbai v. Aristo Exports
Date of order
04 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/2433/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 20 Mumbai v. Aristo Exports, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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.2433 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Aristo Exports
..Respondent.
Ms. Suchitra Kamble for appellant.Mr. Ratan Kumar Samal for respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :-
DATED : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010
1.The following questions of law arise in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgment of ITAT dated 7th January, 2009, pertaining to assessment year2003-04 :-
" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80IB in respect of duty drawback of Rs.51,00,433/- which was not directly 'derived from' the business of assessee's industrial undertaking ?'
2.It is conceded before us by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the question is covered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Liberty India
V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax[(2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC)]. In the circumstances, the appeal shall stand allowed and the question answered in favour of the revenue in terms of the judgment in Liberty India (supra). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, 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.