The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Purshottamr. Ralkar
High Court
20 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Purshottamr. Ralkar
Date of order
20 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Purshottamr. Ralkar, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.17 of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax.....Appellant
Vs.
Mr. PurshottamR. Ralkar, ..Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan with Mr. R. Asokan, for the
Appellant
Mr. A.K. Jasani, for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 20TH MARCH, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 20TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The CIT (A) after considering the material
on record estimated 30% of the man days have not
been not spent on technical services and, therefore,
disallowed deduction under Section 80HHE on 30% of
the total receipts from Intersocks. The Tribunal
after considering the finding recorded by the C.I.T.
(A) concurred with the said findings recorded by
C.I.T. (A). This being clearly finding of fact the
question of law as framed would not arise.
Consequently Appeal dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,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.