Case LawHigh Court › The Cit v. Silkina Trading Ltd

The Cit v. Silkina Trading Ltd

High Court 19 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. Silkina Trading Ltd
Date of order
19 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit v. Silkina Trading Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2008 The CIT .. Appellant Vs. Silkina Trading Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistri with Mr.Raj Darak for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 19th September, 2008 DATE : 19th September, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for both the parties categorically state that the question of law raised in this Appeal is squarely covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT V/s.Lazor Syntex Limited CIT V/s.Lazor Syntex Limitedpassed in Income Tax Application No.11 of 1999 on 11thJune, 2007. In view thereof, and for the same reasons passed in Income Tax Application No.11 of 1999 on 11th June, 2007. as recorded in the aforesaid order dated 11th June, 2007 passed in Income Tax Application No.11 of 1999, the present Appeal being ITXA No.1120 of 2008 stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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