Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. M/S.k. Girdharilal

High Court 06 Aug 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. M/S.k. Girdharilal
Date of order
06 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. M/S.k. Girdharilal, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

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.3776 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.K. Girdharilal ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant. Mr.Paras S. Savla with Ms.Renu Chaudhari for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 August 2010. P.C. : 1.This appeal by the Revenue arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29 January 2009 pertaining to assessment year 2003-2004. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing to include 90% of the labour charges amounting to Rs.1,22,90,301/- in the profit of the business for the purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act without appreciating the fact that such charges were only incidental to the business of the assessee and not directly connected with its export activity ?” 2.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the Counsel for the assessee agreed in stating that the aforesaid question is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court dated 8 April 2010 in The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6 V/s. M/s.Dresser Rand India Private Limited (Income Tax Appeal No.2186 of 2009). In view of the agreed statement made by the Counsel on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee, the aforesaid question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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