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.)
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.