The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.gitanjali Chemicals Private Limited
High Court
11 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.gitanjali Chemicals Private Limited
Date of order
11 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. M/S.gitanjali Chemicals Private Limited, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.574 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Gitanjali Chemicals Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 11[th] January, 2011.
1.This appeal was admitted on 23[rd] September 2008 on the following substantial questions of law :
“a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80IB are computed first and be allowed one after the other ?
b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in not holding that “profit of business” for the purpose of Section 80HHC deduction has to be arrived at after deducting the deduction under Section 80IB ?
2.Learned counsel on both the sides state that the aforesaid
questions of law have already been answered by this Court in the case of
Associated Capsules Private Limited V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Income Tax Appeal No.3036 of 2010) decided on 10th January 2011 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
3.The Appeal is disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, 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.