The Cit-12 v. M/S.s.k.corporation (India
High Court
14 Oct 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-12 v. M/S.s.k.corporation (India
Date of order
14 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-12 v. M/S.s.k.corporation (India, the High Court (2008) dismissed 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2008
The CIT-12 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.S.K.Corporation (India) .. Respondent
Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for the Appellant.
Mr.K.Shivram with Mr.A.R.Singh and Mr.Paras Savla for
the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 14th October, 2008
DATE : 14th October, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused
an order of the ITAT dated 11.2.2008. In the said order
in paragraph No.4 the Tribunal has observed as under:-
"The very same view has been taken by the ITAT Mumbai
Bench "K" in the case of M/s.Vijay Silk House (Delhi)
Ltd. V/s.DCIT in ITA No.6147/Mum/2006, dated 31st
December, 2007."
2. Mr.Vaishampayan, the learned Cousnel for the
Appellant has candidly said that he has not read the
order dated 31st December, 2007 passed in ITA
No.6147/Mum/2006. Needless to say that the said order
has not been annexed to the present Appeal. In any
event, by the order dated 11.2.2008, the ITAT has merely
remanded back the matter to the Assessing Authority,
relying upon its earlier order, to consider only the
profit element of DEPB for the purpose of sec.28(iiid).
Under these circumstances, we do not find any
substantial question of law involved in this Appeal.
Appeal stands dismissed.
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.