{"id":128006,"date":"2001-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001"},"modified":"2015-08-07T20:20:32","modified_gmt":"2015-08-07T14:50:32","slug":"dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: B Patel<\/div>\n
Bench: B Patel, D Mehta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 B.C. Patel, J.   <\/p>\n
 1. The   revenue   has   preferred   the   aforesaid   Tax Appeal Nos.82 of 2001 and 41 of 2001.   We have taken both these   appeals   for   final   hearing   and   disposal as the assessee is the same and the   question   involved   is   the same but for the different years.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The assessee company is engaged in manufacture of precipitated   silica from Sodium Silica at its factory at Bhavnagar.   Sodium Silica can not be used for toothpaste, however,    precipitated    Silica    can    be    used      for manufacturing toothpaste.   The end product from the input is to be seen.   Deduction under section 80HH, 80I and 32A has been   claimed by the assessee.   The assessing officer denied the benefit under sections 80HH, 80I   and   32A   of the Income-Tax Act.   The Tribunal allowed the appeals and hence   the revenue has raised two questions in Appeal No. 81 of 2001 as under :\n<\/p>\n
   “(A) “Whether,   the   Appellate   Tribunal    has substantially   erred   in   law   in holding that      the      assessee      engaged in manufacturing   of precipitated silica can be    considered    to    be    engaged      in manufacturing   activities and is entitled for deduction u\/s. 80HH and 80I of the Act ?”    (B) “Whether,   the   Appellate   Tribunal    has substantially   erred   in   law   in holding that the   assessee   is   entitled   to   the claim   of investment allowance u\/s. 32A of the Act?”\n<\/p>\n
  3. In   Tax   Appeal   No.41   of   2001   the substantial question as found by the Court is as under :\n<\/p>\n
   “Whether on the facts   and   circumstances of   the   case   the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred   in   law   in   holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing of   precipitated silica can be considered to be engaged in manufacturing so   as   to entitle to deduction under section 32A of the Income-Tax Act?”\n<\/p>\n
    The Tribunal examined the matter with a   view   to find   out   whether   the   assessee   can   be   said   to be a manufacturer or   not.      The   Tribunal    considered    the Notification   No.23\/55   dated   29\/11\/1955 whereby several minerals including silica were exempted from excise duty. The   exemption   was   not   on   account   of    manufacturing process.   The Tribunal in its order has referred that the Collector   of   Customs as well as Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal held that precipitated   silica is   covered   by exemption Notification and it is not laid down that precipitated silica produced by the assessee is not manufactured product.   The Tribunal   has   noted   that the    process    of   manufacture   of   precipitated   silica produced by the assessee as found in para 9 of the   order placed   before   the   Tribunal   and also in para 15 of the decision of Central Excise   and   Gold   Control   Appellate Tribunal;   and   several   other   aspects   were   taken into consideration by the Tribunal including the documents, 10 in number, which are referred by the Tribunal in para 6.\n<\/p>\n
 4. It   appears   that   the   contention    before    the Tribunal   on   behalf of the revenue was that the assessee is not a manufacturer of precipitated silica and there is no essential difference between   the   commodity   consumed and commodity   produced.      It   was   canvassed   that   the physical and chemical properties   of   commodity   consumed and commodity   produced   must be different.   The assessee pointed out the distinction between the two.   The   entire process   of manufacturing of precipitated silica has been reproduced in para 8 stage-wise.   It is in   view   of   the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal arrived at   a   conclusion that though precipitated Silica and the silica have   the   same   chemical   formula   i.e.      (s102) precipitated   Silica   is   the   outcome   of   manufacturing activity.    It   appears   to   us   that   in   view   of    the stage-wise   process   pointed   out   to   the   Tribunal, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion and   has   held   that use is   also   different.      The Tribunal also pointed out that the manufacture and   the   process   have   no   clearly demarcated field.      The   Tribunal   was aware that if end product is commercially known as a different product then the process would be a manufacturing process.   It   is   in view   of   these   facts   and   circumstances   the   Tribunal arrived at a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
 5. Mr. Nayak,    learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the revenue contended that in view of the   decision   of   this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v.   Kutch Oil and   Allied   Industries   Pvt.Ltd.,<\/a> reported in 163 I.T.R. 237, it cannot be said that the assessee   is   engaged   in manufacturing process.      At   page 239 the Court examined the definition of   the   expression   “industrial   company” given    in   section   2(8)(c)   of   the   Finance   Act,1974. Reading   the   phrase   in   definition   “engaged    in    the manufacture or process of goods” would include processing simpliciter in the definition of industrial company.   The Court pointed out that whether the activity carried on by the   assessee   company was of manufacturing or processing would be in question.   There is no dispute on   the   point that   even   if   the   assessee   company   is engaged in the activity of the processing of the goods,   it   would   come within the   definition   of “industrial company”.   In that view   of    the    matter,    if    the    activity    of    the assessee-company   comes   within the meaning of processing of the goods,   it   would   not   be   necessary   to   further examine   whether   it would be manufacturing goods or not, and therefore, in our opinion, this   judgment   is   of   no assistance to the Counsel for the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
 6. It would be necessary at this stage to point   out what section 32A states to examine the case.   Sub-section (2)(iii)   of   section   32A   being   relevant   that part is reproduced :\n<\/p>\n
   “(iii) in   any   other industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of construction, manufacture or production of any   article or   thing,   not being an article or thing specified in the   list   in   the   Eleventh Schedule.”\n<\/p>\n
   7. It prima facie points out that the assessee   must be an industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or   thing,   therefore,   the end product would be relevant aspect to be taken into consideration.   Mr.Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue drew our   attention   to the   decision   of the Apex Court in the case of Hotel and Allied Traders Pvt.Ltd.   v.   Commissioner of   Income-Tax,<\/a> reported in 245 I.T.R.   539, wherein the unit was engaged in    preparing   food   packets   or   selling   the   same   or preparing foodstuffs for serving in the hotel it was held there being no question of manufacture or production   the benefit was   not   extended.   The raw material at the most is processed so as to make it   eatable.      The   foodstuff prepared   by   cooking   or   by   any other process from raw materials such as cereals, pulses,   vegetables,   meat   or the   like   cannot   be regarded as a commercially distinct commodity and it cannot be held that   such   foodstuff   is manufactured or   produced.   The Court further pointed out that difference between an industrial undertaking and the trading activity of the assessee which is   also   required to be borne in mind.   In our opinion, this decision is of no assistance to the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Mr.Nayak further states that the   Apex   Court   in the case of   Lucky   Minmat   Pvt.Ltd.   v.   Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in 245 I.T.R.830, has   examined   the question   about   the manufacture or production of article in case of mining of lime stone   and   marble   blocks   and cutting and   sizing them.   The Court pointed out as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “We have been shown the statements of case in the    present matter as also in the matter of Best Chem    and   Limestone   Industries Pvt.Ltd.’s case [1994]    210 ITR 883 (Raj)   and   are   satisfied   that   the    Tribunal has   found   as   aforestated.   There was,    therefore, clearly a distinction   on   the   facts.    The    conversion   into   lime   and   lime   dust   or    concrete by stone crushers could legitimately   be    considered   to   be   a manufacturing process while    the mere   mining   of   limestone   and   marble   and    cutting the same before it was sold in the market    could not be so considered.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 9. Thus, it is very clear that even if lime stone is converted   into   lime   dust   legitimately    it    can    be considered to   be   a manufacturing process.   The chemical value remains the same but the end product is different.  \n \n\n 10. Mr.Nayak   further   submitted   that    before    the Central   Excise   Authority it was contended that it was a mineral.      Mr.Nayak    further    submitted    that      even precipitated   silica   has been considered as a mineral as contended by   the   assessee   before   the   Central   Excise Authorities and therefore, assessee cannot have different stand before   the different authorities.   In our opinion, this contention has no merit as   in   the   central   excise case,   what was required to be considered was whether the article is a mineral or not and if it is a   mineral   then exemption   has   been granted by the excise authorities in accordance with the Notification or   not.      The   learned Counsel   submitted   that   earlier the matter was admitted and that matter was called for hearing with this   matter. It   is   required   to   be noted that when there are common questions involved, the matters should be decided by   the same Court   so   as   to avoid any conflicting view.   Is it the say of the   revenue   that   after   the   questions   are framed the matters must be kept in the cold storage ?   Is it   the   say   of   the   revenue   that   once   the matter is admitted, in subsequent   appeal   without   application   of mind the Court must admit the matter ?   We have heard the learned Counsel   for   the   parties.      Full   hearing   was afforded and therefore it is not just and proper   to   say that once matter is admitted, subsequent matter should be admitted even after full hearing.\n \n\n    11. Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned   Counsel   appearing   for the   appellant submitted that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion after considering   the   material   placed   on record, and therefore, according to him there is no error committed   by   the   Tribunal   much   less an error of law. Court finds that there is no substantial question of law.   \n \n\n 12. In our opinion the Tribunal   on   appreciation   of evidence   and applying the correct test after considering the procedure of manufacture had arrived at a conclusion, hence, our answer would be in favour of the assessee   and against    the   revenue   with   regard   to   all   the   three questions.   The appeals are dismissed.    \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 Author: B Patel Bench: B Patel, D Mehta JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, J. 1. The revenue has preferred the aforesaid Tax Appeal Nos.82 of 2001 and 41 of 2001. We have taken both these appeals for final hearing and disposal as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1303,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\",\"name\":\"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001"},"wordCount":1303,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001","name":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-07T14:50:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asst-vs-madhu-silica-pvt-ltd-on-23-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dy. C.I.T. (Asst.) vs Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128006","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}