M/S METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in sustaining the denial of deduction under Section 10B. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Metrix Precision Components Pvt. Limited, appealed against the denial of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal had denied this benefit.
What were the issues?
Whether the Tribunal erred in denying the benefit of deduction under Section 10B due to misinterpretation or misconstruction of the provision and facts, overlooking relevant Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench decisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- J.B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT21 citing223 ITR 271 · 1997 · SC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.383 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
M/S. METRIX PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LIMITED 46, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KUMBALGODU, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. PRADEEP KASHYAP AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI. GOPINATH M. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALARAM R. RAO, ADV.,)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) - - -
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1598/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 11-04-2014
BEARING ITA NO.1598/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2015 on the following substantial question of law:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in sustaining the order of the Respondent in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the computation of taxable total income on the wrong interpretation of as well as on the misreading of the said provisions especially the sub-section (3)?. (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in sustaining the order of the Respondent
in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the computation of taxable total income on the misconstruction of the facts of the case thereby establishing perversity in the impugned order? (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming the disallowance of the deduction u/s 10B of the Act overlooking the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 223 ITR 271 and the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s Granite Mart P Ltd.,?
For the reasons assigned by us in the order passed today in I.T.A.No.384/2014, the substantial questions of law framed by this court are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the order of the Tribunal insoafar it deprives the assessee of the benefit under Section 10B of the Act are hereby quashed and the
assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 10B of the Act.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE ss
More judgments on Section 10B
- Brainbees Solutions Limited, Pune… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITTPA 1431/PUN/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs Galaxy Surfactants Limited, MumbaiITA 6984/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Pvt… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITTPA 4/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- T vs Motor Co. Ltd., Chennaivs.DCIT, Corp…ITTPA 52/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Vrajlal Chanabhai Kachhadiya, Jamnagar vs ITO, Ward-2(6), JamnagarITA 847/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026