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
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.