In Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.The appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
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.1663 OF 2011
Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Limited..Appellant.
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax..Respondent.
Mr.F.V. Irani with Mr.B.G. Yewle i/by Mr.Rajesh Shah & Company for the appellant.Mr.Tejveer Singh for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 30[th] January 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2000-2001,
following two questions have been raised for our consideration.
“a)Whether profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act can be reduced by the amount of deduction allowed under Section 80-IB of the Act ?
b)Whether the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated on the ground of appeal raised by the appellant in its appeal regarding exclusion of various incomes while arriving at the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertakings for the purposes of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act ?”
2.
Counsel for the parties state that in view of the decision of this
Court in the matter of Associated Capsules P Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2011) 332 ITR 42 (Bom) and the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Liberty India V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 317 ITR 218 (S.C.), the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of above two decisions.
3.The appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to
costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.