Case LawHigh Court › In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indo Ni...

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals

High Court 04 Jul 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals
Date of order
04 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: In the above, the Applicant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the addition made to the closing stock on account of the element of Modvat embedded in it?" 2.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Application No. 363 of 1999 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai .. Applicant V/s. Prestress (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai .. Respondent Mr. G. Hariharan for the Applicant None resent for the Respondent CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 04.07.2005. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 04.07.2005. P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. In the above, the Applicant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the addition made to the closing stock on account of the element of Modvat embedded in it?" 2. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2003) Vol. 261 ITR 275 Supreme Court has clearly held that Modvat credit available to assessee for manufacture of the goods with duty paid raw materials can not be treated as income liable to be taxed. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above, the Application stands dismissed. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan