Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai v. M/S. A.k. Films P. Ltd

Mumbai v. M/S. A.k. Films P. Ltd

High Court 19 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. A.k. Films P. Ltd
Date of order
19 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai v. M/S. A.k. Films P. Ltd, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Issue: (A)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee Company, being a producer of T.V.

Decision: 3.Hence, the Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1636 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-II Mumbai. .. Petitioner. Vs. M/s. A.K. Films P. Ltd., .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Petitioner.Mr. Ajay R. Singh for Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1.The following two questions are raised by the revenue in this appeal. (A)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee Company, being a producer of T.V. Serials, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act?case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee Company, being a producer of T.V. Serials, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee Company that uses its old plant and machinery is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act? 2.As regards the first question raised by the revenue the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T.vs. D.K. Kondkereported in (1991) 192 ITR 128 the first question cannot be entertained. As regards the second question is concerned, at para 8 of its order the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Hence, the second question cannot be entertained. 3.Hence, the Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, 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