Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/341/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/341/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Ii v. L And T Mcneil Ltd

High Court 18 Aug 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/341/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Ii v. L And T Mcneil Ltd
Date of order
18 Aug 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/341/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Ii v. L And T Mcneil Ltd, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in confirming the order of theCIT(A) deleting the addition ofRs.30,94,277/- made by assessing officer tothe closing stock on account of unutilisedModvat Credit?2.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income tax,Mumbai-II, Mumbaiv/s. M/s. L & T McNeil Ltd. .. appellant .. Respondent Mr. K.R.Chaudhary i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod forappellant. Mr.A.K.Jesani i/by M/s.T.Poran & Co. forrespondent. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:18thAugust, 2004 P.C. Heard.2. In this appeal, two substantial questions oflaw have been proposed. The said questions readthus-"1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in confirming the order of theCIT(A) deleting the addition ofRs.30,94,277/- made by assessing officer tothe closing stock on account of unutilisedModvat Credit?2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in confirming the order of theCIT(A) in directing the assessing officerto delete the disallowance of Rs.44,389/-in respect of royalty paid by the assesseeas revenue expenditure?"3. In the light of the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v.Indo Nippon Chemicals Co.Ltd., 261 ITR 275, the learned counsel for the revenue does not press August, 2004. 5. No substantial question of law arises. Appealis dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, J.)(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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