M/S.leben Laboratories Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3) & Another
High Court
28 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.leben Laboratories Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3) & Another
Date of order
28 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.leben Laboratories Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3) & Another, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.507 OF 2007
M/s.Leben Laboratories Private Limited
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3) & Another
..Appellant.
..Respondents.
Mr.N. Joshi i/by Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] February, 2011.
1.Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, the profit of the industrial undertaking on which deduction u/s.80IA has been allowed is required to be excluded in accordance with sub-section (9) to Section 80IA of the Act ?”
2.By consent the appeal is taken up for final hearing. Counsel for
both the sides state that the above question of law has been answered by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the case of Associated Capsules (P.) Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central Circle 43, Mumbai reported in (2011) 197 Taxman 84 (Bom.).
3.Accordingly, the aforesaid question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. No costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, 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.