In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City - 7, Mumbai v. M/S.navneet Publications (I) Limited, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Admit on the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that duty draw back and excise duty refund to be eligible as profit derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of co...
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1327 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City - 7, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Navneet Publications (I) Limited
..Respondent.
Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.Rahul Hakant i/by Mr.A.R. Singh & Mr.Paras Savla for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] March, 2011.
1.Heard. Objections waived. Admit on the following substantial
question of law.
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that duty draw back and excise duty refund to be eligible as profit derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act. In the light of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision int he case of C.I.T. V/s. Sterling Foods Limited reported in 237 ITR 597 ?"
2.Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question is
already answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. Commissioner of
Income Tax reported in 317 ITR 218. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by
answering the question in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
3.The appeal is accordingly disposed off. No costs.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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.