The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai v. M/S. Cipla Limited, Mumbai
High Court
17 Feb 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai v. M/S. Cipla Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
17 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai v. M/S. Cipla Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: (B)Whether on the facts and the circumstances ofthe case and in law the ITAT was justified inincluding duty drawbacks as part of income of theeligible unit for the purposes of calculating deductionunder section 80 IA of the Act?” [SMT.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.346 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income-tax,Mumbai.
.... Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Cipla Limited, Mumbai.
..... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala i/b Sanjay Udeshi for the respondent.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Admit on the following substantial questions of law.
“(A) Whether on the facts and the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was justified inholding that the assessing officer was not justified ininvoking the provisions of section 80 IA (9) and inrestricting the allowance under section 80 IA of theAct?
(B)Whether on the facts and the circumstances ofthe case and in law the ITAT was justified inincluding duty drawbacks as part of income of theeligible unit for the purposes of calculating deductionunder section 80 IA of the Act?”
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.
EaseValue