The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11,Mumbai v. M/S. B.r.t.v
High Court
16 Dec 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11,Mumbai v. M/S. B.r.t.v
Date of order
16 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
1989-90, 1990-91
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11,Mumbai v. M/S. B.r.t.v, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DATED : 16 1.Whether the income derived by the assessee by producing a TV serial is eligible for 80I deduction, is the question raised in this Appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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.5803 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-11,Mumbai.
Vs.
M/s. B.R.T.V.
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. K. Gopal, a/w. Jitendra Singh, for the Respondent.
....
..Appellant.
..Respondents.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
P.C.
th DECEMBER, 2011.
DATED : 16
1.Whether the income derived by the assessee by producing a TV serial is eligible for 80I deduction, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.The ITAT by following its decision in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 1989-90 & 1990-91 has allowed the claim of the assessee. The
Tribunal has also relied upon its decision in the case of Film Shoppe vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2005] 4 SOT
370(MUM). There is nothing on record to show that the Revenue has filed any appeal against the order passed by the ITAT for A.Y. 1989-90 and A.Y. 1990-91 and also in the case of Film Shoppe (supra). Nothing is brought to our notice to find fault with the reasonings given by the ITAT in those cases.
3.In the result, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(A. R. JOSHI, 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.