Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Rl...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Rlc Engineers Pvt.ltd

High Court 05 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Rlc Engineers Pvt.ltd
Date of order
05 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Rlc Engineers Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: In the above appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax...

Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2008. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax .. Appellant. Vs M/s RLC Engineers Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr J. S. Saluja, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr K. Shivaraman, with A. R. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.:---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In the above appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax without examining the applicability of provisions of Section 10-B (9) of Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. We have perused the judgment of the CIT(A) dated 10.11.2003 as well as the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2006. Both Authorities have confirmed that there is no transfer of shareholding of the Industrial Undertaking. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)(DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,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