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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd

High Court 27 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd
Date of order
27 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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 LODGING NO.1596 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. M/s.Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd..Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango and Mr.P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. P.C.: P.C.: . Matter not on Board. With the consent of parties taken on board. Heard forthwith. 2. The issue as framed is as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,was the Hon’ble Tribunal right in holding that, 90% of "net receipts" in respect of labour charges are to be reduced instead of 90% of the "gross receipts" for the purpose of arriving at the ’profits of the business’ for computing deduction u/s.80HHC, ignoring clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC?" (-2-) The learned Tribunal in para.4 of its judgment held that in the present case the income is not income in the nature of interest or other charges mentioned in clause (baa) but labour charges and as discussed in the present case is the operational income of the assessee. They followed the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Bangalore Clothing Co. Ltd., 260 ITR 371 and two judgments of the Cochin Bench. Considering the judgment in Bangalore Clothing Co. Ltd. (supra) as also the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) in favour of the assessee the question of law as framed would not arise and consequently appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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