Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited

High Court 06 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited
Date of order
06 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal is thus 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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.118 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai Versus M/s.Aftek Infosys Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mrs.Padma Divakar for the appellant. Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 6[th] December, 2010. 1.Three questions of law have been raised in this appeal. The Tribunal has quashed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue because the assessee is a 100% EOU and even if the expenditure incurred by the assessee in foreign currency outside India in respect of testing and installation of software is to be deducted from the export turnover, then the similar amount is to be reduced from the total turnover. In such a case, as per the formula under Section 10B, the entire profit is to be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to controvert the findings of the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, 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