The Commissioner Of Income Tax-24 v. M/S Silvassa Wooden Drums
High Court
05 Oct 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-24 v. M/S Silvassa Wooden Drums
Date of order
05 Oct 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-24 v. M/S Silvassa Wooden Drums, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1850 OF 2013
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax-24
Vs.
M/s Silvassa Wooden Drums
..Appellant
..Respondent
....
Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for Appellant in ITXA 1850/2013.Mr. A.K. Saxena, Advocate for Appellant in ITXA 1856/2013.Mr. Niraj Sheth a/w B.G. Walve, Advocates i/b Rajesh Shah & Co.
....CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 5 OCTOBER 2015
P.C.:
These appeals by the appellant under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the common orderdated 2 January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(the 'Tribunal'). The common impugned order is in respect of theAssessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
2.Mr. Arvind Pinto, the learned Counsel for the apellanturges following question of law for our consideration:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of thepresent case the process of galvanizing of H.R.strips/Coils/CR Coils amounts to manufacture/production of article/thing entitling the assessee todeduction u/s. 80IB?”
3.Mr. Arvind Pinto very fairly states that an identicalquestion had been raised by the revenue in respect of theAssessment Year 2004-05 arising from the same impugned orderdated 2 January 2013 before this Court being Income Tax AppealNo. 1364/2013 (CIT Vs. Silvassa Wooden Drums). On 7 April 2015,this Court dismissed the revenue's appeal No. 1364/2013. Mr. Pintofurther states that the above decision dated 7 April 2015 of thisCourt has been accepted by the revenue and is not being challengedby the revenue before the Apex Court.
4.In view of the above, the identical question as formulated
in both the appeals does not give rise to any substantial question oflaw. This is so as the same is covered by the binding decision of thisS.S.DESHPANDE2 / 4
Court rendered on 7 April 2015 in the respondent-assessee's owncase (supra).
5.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order asto costs.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J]
[M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Order.
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.