Case LawHigh Court › M/S. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. Inc...

M/S. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (10)(3)(1)Mumbai & Ors

High Court 25 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (10)(3)(1)Mumbai & Ors
Date of order
25 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer (10)(3)(1)Mumbai & Ors, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Issue: 3.Whether the assessing officer is justified in denying thebenefit under Section 10B of the Act in spite of such benefit beinggranted in the year is the question to be considered in the appeal.It appears that before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),the petitioners have offered to pay 20% of...

Decision: The petition is disposed of in theaforestated terms. [SMT.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.363 OF 2009 M/s. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners Vs. Income Tax Officer (10)(3)(1)Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. Aarti Vissanji with S.J. Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners have challenged Order dated 16/2/2009 whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, has directedthe petitioners to pay 50% of the demand after adjusting theamounts of payments already made or refunds adjusted or pendingadjustments. The demand is raised for the Assessment Year AJN 2006-07. 2.The basic grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners'claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961is rejected even though it was granted in the earlier assessmentyears. 3.Whether the assessing officer is justified in denying thebenefit under Section 10B of the Act in spite of such benefit beinggranted in the year is the question to be considered in the appeal.It appears that before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),the petitioners have offered to pay 20% of the assessed dues. Inthe circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of50%, the petitioners should be directed to pay 20% of the taxdemanded. Hence, the following order: 4.The petitioners are directed to pay 20% of the assessed duesinstead of 50%, after adjusting the amounts which have alreadybeen paid, within one week from today. On such deposit beingmade, the demand raised for Assessment Year 2006-07 shallremain stayed till the disposal of the appeal and if the order passed AJN by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is adverse to the petitioners, for a further period of 30 days thereafter, there shall bestay of recovery of balance dues. The petition is disposed of in theaforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, 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