The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Mar 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08, following common question has been raised for our consideration. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction to the assessee company u/s.
Decision: 3)Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
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 (L) NO.240 OF 2013
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.426 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax-9.
..Appellant.
v.
Jyoti Plastic works Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 18[th] March, 2013.
PC:
In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year
2007-08, following common question has been raised for our consideration.
a)
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction to the assessee company u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the assessee company had failed to comply with the conditions of section 80IB(2)(iii) and 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2)The Tribunal by impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent assessee by following the decision of this court in an appeal filed by the revenue in respondent-assessee's own case reported in 399 ITR 491. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3)Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA, 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.