The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.bajaj Health Care P. Limited
High Court
08 Jun 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.bajaj Health Care P. Limited
Date of order
08 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.bajaj Health Care P. Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: P.C. : 1.Admit on the following substantial question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB in respect of income from DEPB licences amounting to Rs.49,60,639/-, Income from interest on term deposit...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2737 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Bajaj Health Care P. Limited
..Respondent.
Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.M. Subramanian with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 8 June, 2010.
P.C. :
1.Admit on the following substantial question of law :
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB in respect of income from DEPB licences amounting to Rs.49,60,639/-, Income from interest on term deposits amounting to Rs.1,19,931/- and income from dividend amounting to Rs.2,500/- even though these incomes are not in the nature of incomes derived from industrial undertaking.
2.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and the
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue are agreed in stating that the question of law as framed is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Liberty India
V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 ITR 218 (S.C.). The question of law is accordingly answered in the aforesaid terms. Both the Counsel are agreed in stating that the second question is an offshoot of the first question and, therefore, need not be answered.
3.The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.