DY.COMMR.OF I.T vs M/S CORVINE CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTL.LTD — C.A. No. 14343/2015

Case under Direct Taxation : Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Gift Tax Act, 1958, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, Business Profit Tax Act, 1947 [Other Than Matters Covered by Categories 1602-1605] Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010032632012

Filing Date

27-Jan-2012

Registration No

C.A. No. 14343/2015

Diary Number

3263/2012

Order Date

26-Feb-2026

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Direct Taxation : Income Tax Act, 1961, Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Gift Tax Act, 1958, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, Business Profit Tax Act, 1947 [other than matters covered by categories 1602-1605] Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DY.COMMR.OF I.T

    Adv. RAJ BAHADUR YADAV[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S CORVINE CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTL.LTD

    Adv. K. V. MOHAN[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Aug-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

  3. 01-Aug-2024

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

  4. 31-Jul-2024

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

  5. 15-Mar-2021

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai

  6. 12-Feb-2021

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian

  7. 24-Feb-2020

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

  8. 14-Feb-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Registrar

  9. 09-Dec-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Registrar

  10. 14-Aug-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 07-Mar-2017
  12. 07-Mar-2017

    Office ReportView PDF

  13. 07-Mar-2017
  14. 06-Oct-2016
  15. 06-Oct-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  16. 06-Oct-2016
  17. 08-Jul-2016
  18. 08-Jul-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  19. 08-Jul-2016
  20. 28-Apr-2016
  21. 28-Apr-2016
  22. 19-Feb-2016
  23. 19-Feb-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  24. 19-Feb-2016
  25. 02-Nov-2015
  26. 02-Nov-2015
  27. 14-Aug-2015
  28. 14-Aug-2015
  29. 14-Aug-2015
  30. 03-Jul-2015
  31. 06-Apr-2015
  32. 06-Apr-2015
  33. 27-Feb-2015
  34. 27-Feb-2015
  35. 19-Jan-2015
  36. 19-Jan-2015
  37. 08-Jan-2015
  38. 08-Jan-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  39. 08-Jan-2015
  40. 08-Dec-2014
  41. 10-Nov-2014
  42. 10-Nov-2014
  43. 08-Sep-2014
  44. 08-Sep-2014

    Office ReportView PDF

  45. 08-Sep-2014
  46. 08-May-2013
  47. 20-Mar-2013
  48. 02-Jan-2013
  49. 02-Nov-2012
  50. 29-Oct-2012
  51. 11-Sep-2012
  52. 25-Jul-2012
  53. 09-Jul-2012
  54. 09-May-2012
  55. 04-Apr-2012
  56. 16-Mar-2012
  57. 24-Feb-2012
  58. 22-Feb-2012
  59. 17-Feb-2012
  60. 27-Jan-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 14343/2015

  61. 10-Jan-2012
  62. 06-Jan-2012
  63. 04-Jan-2012
  64. 03-Jan-2012
  65. 09-Dec-2011
  66. 09-Dec-2011
  67. 09-Dec-2011
  68. 14-Nov-2011
  69. 14-Nov-2011
  70. 23-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  71. 09-Sep-2011
  72. 09-Sep-2011
  73. 02-Sep-2011
  74. 29-Aug-2011
  75. 23-Aug-2011
  76. 19-Aug-2011
  77. 22-Jul-2011
  78. 22-Jul-2011
  79. 04-Jul-2011
  80. [ 2025 INSC 743 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 14318/2015 (Shital Fibers Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax) The Supreme Court resolved a conflicting judicial interpretation regarding Section 80-IA(9) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant company claimed deductions under both Section 80-IA and Section 80-HHC for Assessment Year 2002-03, but the tax authorities disallowed the 80-HHC deduction, arguing that Section 80-IA(9) prohibits claiming deductions under other provisions when 80-IA deduction is claimed. The Court held that Section 80-IA(9) affects the *allowability* of deductions (not their computation), meaning both deductions can be computed separately on the full gross total income, but their aggregate cannot exceed the eligible business profits—endorsing the Bombay High Court's view. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case