Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.sun Jewels India Ltd

High Court 09 Apr 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.sun Jewels India Ltd
Date of order
09 Apr 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.sun Jewels India Ltd, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

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 BOMBAYO. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2229 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Sun Jewels India Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Anil C.Mishra i/b.PKD Legal for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. April 9, 2010. P.C. : Two questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in the Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was justified in law, in upholding the CIT(A)’s order of deleting the addition of Rs.13,53,077/- in respect of payments made by the assessee beyond the due date towards employer’s and employees’ contribution of Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees Pension Fund, which were paid beyond the due date provided under the relevant statutes; (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the AO to include labour charges of Rs.70,25,300/- and sale of scrap of Rs.3,18,000/- in the profit as well as the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act.” Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that the first question of law is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9[th] October 2009 in CIT vs. WMI Cranes Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal 1155 of 2007). In the circumstances, in view of the statement made, the first question has not raised any substantial question of law. In so far as the second question is concerned, by consent, the order of the Tribunal on this issue, is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 8[th ]April 2010 in CIT vs. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.2186 of 2009). The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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