In Itxa/4729/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12 Mumbai v. Prestress Wire Industries, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the profit derived by the assessee were on account of the activity of manufacture or production of the articles carried on by the assessee and hence eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act,...
Decision: In these circumstances, both the appeals are 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.4728 OF 2010 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4729 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Prestress Wire Industries..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta with Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr. P.J.Pardiwala, senior Advocate with Atul K.Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ.
DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the profit derived by the assessee were on account of the activity of manufacture or production of the articles carried on by the assessee and hence eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in these appeals.
2.Perusal of the order of the ITAT shows that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the case of
the assessee for assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The appeals filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT relating to AY 1995-96 to 1998-99 have been dismissed by this Court on 10/6/2008 on account of delay in filing the appeals. No steps have been taken to restore those said appeals and thus the orders passed for AY 1995-96 to 1998-99 have attained finality. No case is made out for setting aside the decision of ITAT. In these circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. TATED, 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.