Siltap Chemicals Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Cir-29 & Anr
High Court
18 Jan 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Siltap Chemicals Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Cir-29 & Anr
Date of order
18 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Siltap Chemicals Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Cir-29 & Anr, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In the circumstances, the question of law shall stand answered in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench and the appeal shall stand dismissed.
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.509 OF 2006
Siltap Chemicals Ltd.
... Appellant.
Vs.
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Cir-29 & Anr....Respondent.
.....
Mr.B.D.Damodar i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co. for the Appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
18[th] January, 2010.
P.C.:
The appeal was admitted on the following substantial
question of law :
“Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the allowance of depreciation of Rs.34,71,703/- as a mandatory deduction while computing the income under the head profits and gains of business or profession and in computing the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue are agreed that the
question of law is covered in favour of the Revenue by the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Plastiblends India Ltd.
vs. ACIT, (2009) 318 ITR 352. In the circumstances, the question of law shall stand answered in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench and the appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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.
EaseValue