The Paper Products Limited, Mumbai v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(2), Mumbai & Anr
High Court
11 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Paper Products Limited, Mumbai v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(2), Mumbai & Anr
Date of order
11 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Paper Products Limited, Mumbai v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(2), Mumbai & Anr, the High Court (2011) allowed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3689 OF 2010
ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3690 OF 2010
The Paper Products Limited, Mumbai
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2), Mumbai & Anr.
..Appellant.
..Respondents.
Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the appellant.Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the respondents.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 11[th] January, 2011.
1.These appeals were admitted on 23[rd] August 2010 on the
following substantial questions of law :
a)Whether the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act can be reduced by the amount of deduction allowed under Section 80IB of the Act ?
b)Assuming without admitting that such reduction is to be carried out, whether the Tribunal ought to have held that such reduction should be restricted to the amount of export profits comprised in the income eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act ?
2.In so far as first question is concerned, learned counsel on both
the sides state that the same has already been answered by this Court in the
case of Associated Capsules Private Limited V/s. Dy. Commissioner of
Income Tax (Income Tax Appeal No.3036 of 2010) decided on 10th January 2011 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
3.In so far as second question is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in view of answer to first question, the second question has become infructuous and hence need not be answered.
4.The Appeals are disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, 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.