Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Taxmadurai v....

The Commissioner Of Income Taxmadurai v. Penguin Apparels (P) Ltd

High Court 11 Jul 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Taxmadurai v. Penguin Apparels (P) Ltd
Date of order
11 Jul 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Taxmadurai v. Penguin Apparels (P) Ltd, the High Court (2025) 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.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

TCA No.456 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2025 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICEAND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN TCA No.456 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income TaxMadurai Appellant Vs Penguin Apparels (P) Ltd,82, Aruppukottai Road,Madurai-625 012. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Chennai, dated 8.12.2008 in ITA No.7/Mds/2008. For Appellant:Mr.J.NarayanaswamySr. Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman __________ Page 1 of 4 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The appeal was admitted on 30.6.2009 on the following questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC is to be allowed without deducting the deduction granted under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in ignoring the specific provision 80IA(9) read with Section 80IB(13) which forbids deduction to the extent of profit allowed under Section 80IB under any provision of Chapter VIA?” 2. Mr.Narayanaswamy states that the monetary limit involved in this appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India. Counsel says that he has instructions, therefore, to withdraw the appeal. 3. Moreover, both the questions of law will be covered by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU v. Rane Brake Lining __________ Page 2 of 4 TCA No.456 of 2009 Ltd[1]. Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 11.07.2025 Index : Neutral Citationsasi Yes/No :Yes/No To: 1. The Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Madurai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I, Madurai. 12025 SCC OnLine Mad 2680 __________ Page 3 of 4 __________ Page 4 of 4 TCA No.456 of 2009 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDSUNDER MOHAN,J. (sasi) TCA No.456 of 2009 11.07.2025
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