The Commissioner Of Income Tax, 7 v. M/S.the Ruby Mills Ltd
High Court
19 Mar 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, 7 v. M/S.the Ruby Mills Ltd
Date of order
19 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, 7 v. M/S.the Ruby Mills Ltd, the High Court (2010) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.415 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, 7.
...Appellant.
Vs.
M/s.The Ruby Mills Ltd....Respondent.
....
Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.J.B. Andhyarujina,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Balasaheb G. Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent.
..... J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
March 19, 2010.
P.C. :
The appeal by the Revenue was admitted on the
following substantial question of law:
“ Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that 90% of the net interest paid having nexus with interest required to be reduced from the eligible export profit for the purpose of computation of export profit allowable to be deducted u/s.80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in view of the provisions contained in Section 80 HHC(4A)(baa)?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee and Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that in terms of the
judgment which we have delivered today in CIT vs. Asian Star Co.
Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.200 of 2009), the question of law
would have to be answered against the assessee and in favour of
the Revenue. For the reasons stated in our judgment in Asian Star, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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.