Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai v. M/S.pardiam Exports Pvt.ltd

Mumbai v. M/S.pardiam Exports Pvt.ltd

High Court 01 Dec 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S.pardiam Exports Pvt.ltd
Date of order
01 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai v. M/S.pardiam Exports Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal.

Issue: DATED : DECEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. :- 1 The question raised in this appeal is whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax-7,Mumbai...Appellantvs.M/s.Pardiam Exports Pvt.Ltd....Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Deepak Tralshawala with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. :- 1 The question raised in this appeal is whether ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the case of the assessee for the earlier years. 3The learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of assessee for the earlier years (Income Tax Appeal No.2188/2009) has been dismissed on 30[th] November, 2009. 4dismissed. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby (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