The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -16, Mumbai v. M/S. Vishandas Holaram
High Court
09 Dec 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -16, Mumbai v. M/S. Vishandas Holaram
Date of order
09 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
2000-01
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -16, Mumbai v. M/S. Vishandas Holaram, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.6691 of 2010.
The Commissioner of Income-tax -16, Mumbai
... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Vishandas Holaram ... Respondent.
Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr Aarti Sathe with Mr Kalpesh Turalkar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 9th December, 2011.
P.C. :-
1.The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under :-
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to include the exchange rate gain difference of Rs.2,43,41,256/- pertaining to the exports of earlier years in the export turnover for the year under consideration for arriving at the allowable deduction under section 80HHC without appreciating that the said amount was not the part of export turnover for the appreciating year under consideration and without considering that the Assessee is following mercantile system of accounting?
2.The ITAT following the decision in the case of the Assessee for AY
2000-01 has allowed the claim of the Assessee. Counsel for the Revenue fairly
states that the decision of the ITAT in the case of the Assessee for AY 2000-01
has been accepted by the Revenue. No arguments are advanced to find fault
Ladda
with the reasoning given by the ITAT for the assessment year 2000-01. In these circumstances, we find no fault with the order of the ITAT. 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.