In Messrs Ami Gems v. V.c.daga,J, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal.
Issue: Inthe above Appeal, the following substantial questionof law is sought to be raised:Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was justified in lawin holding that reassortment charges were notincludible in the business profits forcomputation of deduction under Section 80 H...
Decision: The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.415 OF 2001
Messrs Ami GemsVs.The Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellant.Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for theRespondent.
..Appellant
..Respondent
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &V.C.DAGA, JJ.DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2007
P.C.1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Inthe above Appeal, the following substantial questionof law is sought to be raised:Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was justified in lawin holding that reassortment charges were notincludible in the business profits forcomputation of deduction under Section 80 HHCof the Act?2.For the reasons stated in the Income TaxApplication No.12 of 2001, the above question of lawis answered in favour of the Assessee and against theRevenue. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.