In Itxa/2350/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Mumbai v. M/S Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd., Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the addition made by the assessing officer and enhanced by the CIT(A) on account of unutilised Modvat credit was not sustainable in law, is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Ms. Aasifa Khan for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the addition made by the assessing officer and enhanced by the CIT(A) on account of unutilised Modvat credit was not sustainable in law, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The ITAT in para 7 of its order has recorded a finding that the assessee has given effect to the provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in valuing purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under
the head “profits and gains of business or profession” and the same is evident from annexure-III to the tax audit report. The ITAT further held that the revenue has simply added the amount of difference without pointing out whether balance in Modvat credit account pertains to purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No question of law arises out of the said order. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R. JOSHI, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.