Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/3389/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/3389/2010 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/3389/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -20 Mumbai v. Aristo Exports
Date of order
04 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/3389/2010 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.

Issue: 2.The following questions of law arise in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgment of ITAT dated 23rd June, 2009, pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 :- 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduct...

Decision: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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 JURISDICTIONORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2963 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 office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. 2.The following questions of law arise in the appeal filed by the revenue against the judgment of ITAT dated 23rd June, 2009, pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 :- 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of duty drawback of Rs.12,50.261/- for deduction under section 80IB in spite of recent order dated 31-8-2009 of Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. CIT that duty drawback / DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profit eligible for deduction u/s.80I/ 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act ?ITAT is justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of duty drawback of Rs.12,50.261/- for deduction under section 80IB in spite of recent order dated 31-8-2009 of Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. CIT that duty drawback / DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profit eligible for deduction u/s.80I/ 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act ? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in ignoring that the nexus between the expressions income derived from the income attributable to industrial activities needs to be established for determining the duty drawback and cannot be held to be profits & gains derived from industrial undertaking and hence not entitled for deduction under section 80IB ?ITAT is justified in ignoring that the nexus between the expressions income derived from the income attributable to industrial activities needs to be established for determining the duty drawback and cannot be held to be profits & gains derived from industrial undertaking and hence not entitled for deduction under section 80IB ? 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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan