Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai C...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai City-Xiv v. M/S. Sunrise Metal Industries

High Court 08 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai City-Xiv v. M/S. Sunrise Metal Industries
Date of order
08 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai City-Xiv v. M/S. Sunrise Metal Industries, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai City-XIV. ...........Appellant. VersusM/s. Sunrise Metal Industries. ............Respondent. M/s. Sunrise Metal Industries. .... Mr. D. K. Kamwal, with Mr. T. C.Kaushik for the Appellant.Mr. K. Shivram with Mr. P.S.Savla for the Respondent. CORAM :BILAL NAZKIandA. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.DATED :8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.: The only question which is raised in this appeal, is as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Honourable Tribunal is correct in holding that theassessee is eligible for deductions u/s 80(1-A) of the IncomeTax Act especially when there is no own manufacturing facilityfor the assessee?” 2.There is a finding of the Tribunal and also of the Appellate Authority that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing, but one of thecomponents manufacturing activity was done with the help of outside party.Nonetheless, the assessee maintained direct supervision and effective controlover the outside party. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the deductions under Section 80(1A) was admissible. Because of the finding of fact by the Tribunal, we do not find any question arises. 3.Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, 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