Case LawHigh Court › M/S.mazda Colours Limited, Mumbai v. The...

M/S.mazda Colours Limited, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – I, Mumbai

High Court 11 Jan 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.mazda Colours Limited, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – I, Mumbai
Date of order
11 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In M/S.mazda Colours Limited, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – I, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.194 OF 2009 M/s.Mazda Colours Limited, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City – I, Mumbai..Respondent. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 11[th] January, 2011. 1.This appeal was admitted on 31[st] March 2009 on the following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper construction of Section 80IA (9) read with Section 80AB, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profits and gains of the Vapi Unit for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80IB were to be calculated and thereafter reduced from the profits and gains of the business for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act ? 2.Learned counsel on both the sides state that the aforesaid question of law has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Capsules Private Limited V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Income Tax Appeal No.3036 of 2010) decided on 10th January 2011 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3.The Appeal is disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, 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