The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 20 v. Sudhir S. Bhatia
High Court
17 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 20 v. Sudhir S. Bhatia
Date of order
17 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 20 v. Sudhir S. Bhatia, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
K
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5986 OF 2010WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2120 OF 2010WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2121 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 20Vs.Sudhir S. Bhatia
.. Appellant... Respondent.
Mr. D.K. Kamwal for the Appellant.Mr. Trakshawala with Mr. Vishnu S. Hadade for Respondent.
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR, K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 17TH AUGUST, 2011.
P.C.
1Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the dried chalks produced by the Assessee constituted manufacture and hence eligible for deduction under section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this Appeal?
2The ITAT in para 9 of its order has set out the process undertaken by the Assessee wherein it is stated that Premixed Plaster of Paris and Talc are
904 itxal 5986.10 gr .doc
subjected to a process for obtaining dried chalks which is a distinct and separate marketable commodity having of its own character, use and name. In fact, the definition of the expression ‘manufacture’ inserted by clause 29BA in section 2 of the Finance (No.2) Bill Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009 supports the contention of the Assessee.
3In the present case, admittedly the product produced by the Assessee is a different marketable commodity having distinct character and use and therefore, the decision of ITAT in holding that the Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of an Article and hence eligible for section 80IB deduction cannot be faulted.
4In the result, we see no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, 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.