THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, MUMBAI vs M/S PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. ,MUMBAI

Judgment text excerpt

1-itxa 1146-04-J.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2004 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 934 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II, Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. … Appellant Versus M/s. Patel Engg. Ltd., Patel Estate, S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400 102. ... Respondent __________________________ Mr. N. C. Ranganayakulu for the Appellant. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Mr. Punit Shah, Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Rahul Dev and Ms. Avina Karnad i/b Argus Partners for the Respondent in ITXA 934/08. Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate, Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Punit Shah, Mr. Rahul Dev and Ms. Avina Karnad i/b Argus Partners for the Respondent in ITXA 1146/04. __________________________ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12th FEBRUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 11th MARCH, 2026 JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.): 1. These are appeals under the provisions of Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the said Act” for short) preferred by the Revenue Amk 1/35 1-itxa 1146-04-J.doc challenging orders dated 22nd June, 2004 and 26th February, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short). The respondent is an assessee under the provisions of the said Act and the relevant assessment years are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. 2. By the impugned orders, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed by the ITAT. These appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law:- a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the correct interpretation of Section 80IA (4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and