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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Silver Plastochem Pvt. Ltd

High Court 24 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Silver Plastochem Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
24 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Silver Plastochem Pvt. 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.265 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax.Vs. ..Appellant. M/s. Silver Plastochem Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.S.M.Shah with Mr. Sandeep Wasnik and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 24th March,2008. PC : 1. The Question of law-A as framed reads as under. "Whether the Custom duty Rs.11,13,896/- paid on the purchases made during the year and added pro rata at the end of year on closing stock can to be disallowed u/s. 43B? 2. The learned Tribunal in dismissing the appealpreferred by the revenue referred to the judgment ofthis court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 252 ITR 43. In the light of that, the question of law-A as framed would not arise. 3. The question of law B reads as under. "Whether Central Sales Tax of Rs.62,138collected but remain unpaid can be disallowedu/s.43B?4. The Tribunal has answered this issue in favour ofthe assessee. However, as the tax incidence is lessthan Rs.4.00 lacs, the appeal on this point is not (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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