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.)
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.