Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. M...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Modern Paper Convertors

High Court 13 Jun 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Modern Paper Convertors
Date of order
13 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Modern Paper Convertors, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.By this appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the followingquestion of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,48,852/- made by the AO,without considering the provision of s.

Decision: Under the aforesaid facts andcircumstances we find no substantial question of law involved,hence appeal is 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal NO. 716 of 2000 The Commissioner of Income-tax .... Appellant. vs. M/s. Modern Paper Convertors . .. ... . ... Respondents E. P. Chopra for Appellant None for Respondents. CORAM:S. RADHAKRISHNAN ANDA. S. AGUIAR JJ. Date: 13/6/2005 P,C, 1.Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and theRespondents. 2.By this appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the followingquestion of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,48,852/- made by the AO,without considering the provision of s. 43B of the I. T. Act 1961?” 3. We have perused the Order dated 10[th] October 2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, declining to refer the above questionfor reference. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the refundsought unconditionally and the liability of the assessee did not ceasefinally once for all, since the refund was subject to the further ordersby the CEGAT in the appeal and no benefit had accrued to theassessee during the year ending 31.3.87 under section 41(1).Hence the Tribunal had agreed with the CIT(A) and held that refundcannot be taxed under section 41(1). Under the aforesaid facts andcircumstances we find no substantial question of law involved,hence appeal is dismissed. S. RADHAKRISHNAN J. A. S. AGUIAR 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