Itxa/259/2004 Of M/S Tata Infomedia Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
05 Jul 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/259/2004 Of M/S Tata Infomedia Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
05 Jul 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/259/2004 Of M/S Tata Infomedia Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In the above view, as the Appellant has not taken an appropriatesteps in prosecuting of this appeal, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2004
M/s. TATA Infomedia Ltd.
… Appellant
V/s.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Special Range – 1… Respondent
-----
Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w Mr. P.C. Tripathi I/b Raj Darak for the Appellant.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE : 05[th] JULY, 2018
P.C.:
.This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.09.2003 and was admittedon 11.01.2005 on the following substantial questions of law.
“ 1. Whether on the facts and on proper interpretation of Section 80Q of theAct, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the deduction under Section 80Q wasto be computed after reduction the profit derived from the business of printing andpublishing of books by the brought forward business losses/allowances of non-eligible activities carried on the earlier years?
2.Whether on proper interpretation of section 80Q of the Act andparticularly in view of the wording a deducting from such profits and gains, theTribunal committed a gross error of law in denying to the appellant the deduction
under Section 80Q on the whole of profit and gains from the business of printingand publication of books?”
2
At the time of admission, the Respondents were not represented. There is
no evidence of service of the appeal after the admission in 2005 upon theRespondents. In the above view, as the Appellant has not taken an appropriatesteps in prosecuting of this appeal, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.