Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/905/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/905/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Savvion India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai

High Court 07 Aug 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/905/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Savvion India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai
Date of order
07 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/905/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Savvion India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Decision: 5.In the above view of the matter, both appeals are dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 905 OF 2009 ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-,... Appellant. V/s. Savvion India Pvt.Ltd.... Respondent. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. S.E.Dastur with Niraj Seth i/b. Mint & Confreres for the respondent. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2.The questions raised in both these appeals are common relating to different assessment years. The questions raised read as under: �A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee company is a manufacturer of software, notwithstanding that the company�s only function was limited to downloading and testing the software developed by its parent company? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case an in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee company was actually exporting the software, notwithstanding that the company was only returning back to its parent company the software sent to it for limited purpose of testing? 3.As regards the first question is concerned, the revenue has not challenged the decision of the C.I.T.(A) holding that the activity carried out by the assessee is a manufacturing activity. Therefore, the first question does not arise out the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4.As regards the second question is concerned, once it is accepted by the revenue that the activity carried out by the assessee amounts to manufacturing activity, then, obviously, export of that product would amount to export. Therefore, second question also cannot be said to be a substantial question of law arising out of the impugned order. 5.In the above view of the matter, both appeals are dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (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