Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/556/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-...

Itxa/556/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19, Mumbai v. M/S. Concept International

High Court 20 Oct 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/556/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19, Mumbai v. M/S. Concept International
Date of order
20 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/556/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19, Mumbai v. M/S. Concept International, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question raised in this appeal is whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of estimated export incentive that might have been received by the assessee.

Decision: Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AGK ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.556 OF 2008 Commissioner of Income-tax-XIX ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Concept International ..Respondents. Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of estimated export incentive that might have been received by the assessee. The fact that the assessee could not produce documents could not be a ground to make addition on hypothetical basis. If the additions made are without any basis, the decision of the tribunal in deleting the additions cannot be faulted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, 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