Itxa/275/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central-Ii v. M/S Bhatt Production
High Court
10 Jul 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/275/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central-Ii v. M/S Bhatt Production
Date of order
10 Jul 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/275/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central-Ii v. M/S Bhatt Production, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the action of the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance u/s.80-I quantified at Rs.6,53,252/- ?
Decision: In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.275 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.275 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Bhatt Production ..Respondent.
Mr.Shiv Muturiya for appellant.
Dr.K.Shivram with Ajay Singh for respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 10TH JULY, 2006.
P.C.:
Heard rival parties. The appellant has raised
the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the ITAT was justified in law in
upholding the action of the CIT (A) in deleting
the disallowance u/s.80-I quantified at
Rs.6,53,252/- ?
2. Whether profits from production of film are
entitled to deduction u/s.80-1 of the Act ?
Both parties submit that the issue sought to be
raised, common in both questions is covered against the
revenue in view of the Judgment of this Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. D.K. Kondke
Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. D.K. Kondke192 I.T.R. 128. Thus, no substantial
reported in 192 I.T.R. 128
question of law is involved in the appeal.
In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine
with no order as to costs.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(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.