In The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central v. Padmini Technologies Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Both the counsel for the revenue as well as the assessee agree that only one issue arises for consideration which is: Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in allowing a deduction in the sum of Rs.6.80 Crores to the assessee under section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Decision: The appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
*
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment reserved on : 08.09.2011 Judgment delivered on: 14.09.2011
+
ITA No.1124/2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
...... Appellant
Vs
Padmini Technologies Ltd.
.......Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Ms. Surushi Aggarwal Mr.S.K. Aggarwal
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAULHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1999-2000. Both the counsel
for the revenue as well as the assessee agree that only one issue arises for
consideration which is: Whether the Tribunal mis-directed itself in allowing
a deduction in the sum of Rs.6.80 Crores to the assessee under section 80
HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. It is also not disputed by the counsels before us that the decision in
respect of this issue will be governed by the view taken by us in respect of an identical issue in ITA No.1265/2007.
3. Since we have taken a view in ITA No.1265/2007 that no question of law requires to be framed, this appeal would follow the same fate. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 yg
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.