{"id":74931,"date":"2008-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-08T00:10:43","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T18:40:43","slug":"ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Deshpande<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                     INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.487 OF 2005\n\n    M\/s. Solid Containers Ltd.\n    Tiececon House, Dr. E. Moses Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    Mumbai-400 011.                                              .. Appellant\n\n                versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,\n        Spl. Range-I, Mumbai, having his office\n                                 \n        at Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, \n        Mumbai-400 020.\n                                \n    2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax-I,\n        having his office at\n        Aayakar Bhavan,\n             \n\n        M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020.                               .. Respondents\n          \n\n\n\n    Mr. A.R. Singh for the appellant.\n    Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                      CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &\n                                                   A.P. DESHPANDE, J.\n\n                              DATED  OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :     5TH AUGUST, 2008\n                             DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :  29TH AUGUST, 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.)\n<\/pre>\n
                This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   order   passed   by   the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 31st December,<\/p>\n
    2001 wherein the Tribunal has rejected the contention raised by the<\/p>\n
    Assessee   that   the   loan   was   a   capital   receipt   and   has   not   been<\/p>\n
    claimed   as   deduction   from   the   taxable   income   as   expenses   and,<\/p>\n
    therefore,   did   not   represent   income  under   section   41(1)   and,   thus,<\/p>\n
    sustained   the   addition   of   Rs.6,86,071.   The   Assessing   Officer   had<\/p>\n
    made the addition on the ground that the credit balance returned back<\/p>\n
    is   the   income   of   the   Assessee   in   view   of   the   fact   that   it   is   again<\/p>\n
    directly arising out of the business activity and the same was liable to<\/p>\n
    be taxed under section 28 of the Act.  The learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for the  appellant argued that the impugned order suffers from error of<\/p>\n
    law   as   well   as   of   appreciation   of   facts.   While   relying   upon   the<\/p>\n
    judgment   of   this   court   in   the   case   of   Mahindra   &   Mahindra   v.\n<\/p>\n
    Commissioner   of   Income   tax,   2003   ITR   261,   page   501,   it   was<\/p>\n
    contended that in relation to the transaction in question, section 28(iv)<\/p>\n
    was   not   attracted   and   even   provisions   of   section   41(1)   of   the   Act<\/p>\n
    could   not   be   applied   to   treat   the   same   as  business  income   of   the<\/p>\n
    Assessee liable to tax.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.          In order to examine whether any substantial question of law<\/p>\n
    arises in the present appeal or not, reference to basic facts may be<\/p>\n
    necessary.     The   Assessee-appellant   had   taken   a   loan   of<\/p>\n
    Rs.6,86,071\/- during the previous year for business purposes which<\/p>\n
    was returned back, as a result of consent terms arrived at between<\/p>\n
    M\/s.   P.S.   Jain   Motors   on   the   one   hand   and   the   Assessee   on   the<\/p>\n
    other.     The   Assessee   claimed   that   the   said   loan   was   the   capital<\/p>\n
    receipt   and   has   not   been   claimed   as   deduction   from   the   taxable<\/p>\n
    income as expenses and therefore, did not come under section 41(1).\n<\/p>\n
    As   already   noticed,   this   contention   was   rejected   by   the   Assessing<\/p>\n
    Officer on the ground that credit balance returned back is the income<\/p>\n
    of the Assessee in view of the fact that it is again directly arising out of<\/p>\n
    the business activity of the Assess and was liable to tax under section<\/p>\n
    28   of   the   Act.     The   order   was   appealed   against.   Commissioner<\/p>\n
    partially allowed the appeal.  Aggrieved from the order of the Income<\/p>\n
    Tax Commissioner (Appeals), further appeal was preferred before the<\/p>\n
    Income  Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   which   again   allowed  the   appeal  on<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    other   counts   but   on   the   above   issue   and   while   relying   upon   the<\/p>\n
    judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of   Commissioner   of<\/p>\n
    Income Tax, Madurai v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.,<\/a> (1996)<\/p>\n
    6   SCC   294,   sustained   the   view   taken   by   the   Commissioner.     The<\/p>\n
    Tribunal held as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “8.           We   have   carefully   considered   the
\n               submissions   made   by   the   rival   parties.     The<\/p>\n
               assessee company had taken certain loan from M\/s.
\n               P.S. Jain Motors.  This amount was payable to them<\/p>\n
               with interest of  Rs.2,83,819\/-.  The party filed a suit
\n               for recovery  and thereafter the  assessee company<\/p>\n
               filed counter-claims and the matter was settled out of
\n               the court whereby the assessee company was not to
\n               pay any amount.   The assessee company credited
\n               to   the   profit   and   loss   account   the   interest  amount<\/p>\n
               and offered the same for  taxation.   With regard to
\n               the addition of Rs.6,86,071\/-, the assessee company<\/p>\n
               directly credited the amount to the reserves account
\n               considering   the   same   as   capital   receipt.     It   was
\n               claimed by the learned counsel that the amount was
\n               not a deemed profit under section 41(1) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               According   to   the   learned   counsel,   this   amount
\n               cannot   be   charged   even   under   the   provisions   of
\n               section 28 of the Act as the amount earned is neither
\n               a revenue receipt nor intended for revenue account.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In   this   connection,   we   would   like   to   refer   to   the
\n               decision  of   the   Honourable   Supreme   Court   in   the
\n               case  of  CIT  vs.  T.V.   Sundaram  Iyengar  and   Sons
\n               Ltd.<\/a>   (1996),   222   ITR   344   wherein   the   Honourable
\n               Supreme Court has laid down that “If the amount is<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
            received in the course of trading transactions, even
\n            though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being<\/p>\n
            of   capital   character,   the   amount   changes   its
\n            character when the amount becomes the assessee’                s<\/p>\n
            own   money   because   of   limitation   or   by   any   other
\n            statutory or contractual right.   Where the assessee
\n            received   deposits   in   the   course   of   trading
\n            transactions,   the   amount   of   such   credit   balances<\/p>\n
            which   were   barred   by  limitations  and   which   were
\n            written back by the assessee to the profit and loss
\n            account   were   to   be   assessed   as   the   assessee’     s
\n            income”.  In view of the above decisions of the Apex<\/p>\n
            Court   and   also   keeping   in   view   the   provisions   of
\n            Section 28(iv) of the Act, we find full justification for<\/p>\n
            making the  addition  of Rs.6,86,071\/-.   Accordingly,
\n            the findings of the learned CIT (A) are upheld.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It is worthwhile to refer to observation of Apex Court in T.V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Sundaram (supra).\n<\/p>\n
             22.         The   principle   laid   down   by   Atkinson,   J.\n<\/p>\n
             applies in full force to the facts of this case.   If a
\n             common   sense   view   of   the   matter   is   taken,l   the
\n             assessee,   because   of   the   trading   operation,   had<\/p>\n
             become richer by the amount which it transferred to
\n             its profit and loss account.  The moneys had arisen
\n             out of ordinary trading  transactions.   Although the
\n             amounts   received   originally   were   not   of   income<\/p>\n
             nature,   the   amounts   remained   with   the   assessee
\n             for a long period unclaimed by the trade parties.  By
\n             lapse of time, the claim of the deposit became time-
\n             barred   and   the  amount   attained  a  totally  different
\n             quality.     It   became   a   definite   trade   surplus.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
     Atkinson, J. pointed out that in Tattersall case no
\n     trading asset was created.  Mere change of method<\/p>\n
     of bookkeeping had taken place.  But, where a new
\n     asset came into being automatically by operation of<\/p>\n
     law,   common   sense   demanded   that   the   amount
\n     should be entered in the profit and loss account for
\n     the year and be treated as taxable income.  In other
\n     words, the principle appears to be that if an amount<\/p>\n
     is received in course of a trading transaction, even
\n     though   it   is   not   taxable   in   the   year   of   receipt   as
\n     being of revenue character, the amount changes its
\n     character   when   the   amount   becomes   the<\/p>\n
     assessee’    s own money because of limitation or by
\n     any other statutory or contractual right.  When such<\/p>\n
     a thing happens, common sense demands that the
\n     amount   should   be   treated   as   income   of   the<\/p>\n
     assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     23.            In   the   present   case,   the   money   was
\n     received by the assessee in course of carrying on<\/p>\n
     his   business.    Although  it   was   treated   as  deposit
\n     and was of capital nature, at the point of time it was<\/p>\n
     received, by efflux of time the money has become
\n     the   assessee’      s   own   money.     What   remains   after
\n     adjustment of the deposits has not been claimed by
\n     the customers.   The claims of the customers have<\/p>\n
     become  barred  by limitation.     The  assessee  itself
\n     has treated the money as its own money and taken
\n     the amount to its profit and loss account.  There is
\n     no explanation from the assessee why the surplus<\/p>\n
     money was taken to its profit and loss account even
\n     if   it   was   somebody   else’  s   money.     In   fact,     as
\n     Atkinson, J. pointed out that what the assessee did
\n     was   the   common   sense   way   of   dealing   with   the
\n     amounts.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.         The present appellant can hardly drive any advantage from<\/p>\n
    the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra).   As in that case, a<\/p>\n
    clear   finding   was   recorded   that   the   Assessee   continued   to   pay<\/p>\n
    interest at the rate of 6% for a period of 10 years and the agreement<\/p>\n
    for purchase of toolings was entered into much prior to the approval<\/p>\n
    of loan arrangement given by the reserve Bank of India.  Therefore,<\/p>\n
    the loan agreement, in its entirety, was not obliterated by such waiver.\n<\/p>\n
    Secondly, the purchase consideration related to capital assets.  The<\/p>\n
    toolings   were   in   the   nature   of   dies   and   the   Assessee   was   a<\/p>\n
    manufacturer of heavy vehicles.   The import was that of plant and<\/p>\n
    machinery and the waiver could not constitute business.  The facts of<\/p>\n
    the present case are entirely different in as much as it was a loan<\/p>\n
    taken for trading activity and ultimately, upon waiver the amount was<\/p>\n
    retained in business by the Assessee.  Thus, the principle stated by<\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Ayengar & Sons<\/p>\n
    Ltd. (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
    case.   The amount which initially did not fall within the scope of the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
    provisions rendering it  liable  to tax subsequently have become the<\/p>\n
    Assessee’
\n            s income being part of the trading of the Assessee.  Similar<\/p>\n
    view was also taken by a Bench of Madras High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
    Commissioner of Income tax v. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (255)<\/p>\n
    ITR   510.     The   court   took   the   view   that   the   Assessee   because   of<\/p>\n
    trading   operation   became   richer   by   the   amount   which   had   been<\/p>\n
    transferred   and\/or   retained   in   the   Profit   and   Loss   Account   of   the<\/p>\n
    Assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          In view of the above settled position of law and the facts of<\/p>\n
    the present case, we are of the considered view that no question of<\/p>\n
    law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in<\/p>\n
    the present appeal. Appeal dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     CHIEF JUSTICE <\/p>\n
                                                     A.P. DESHPANDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:47:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008 Bench: A.P. Deshpande 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.487 OF 2005 M\/s. Solid Containers Ltd. Tiececon House, Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai-400 011. .. Appellant versus 1. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - 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\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T18:40:43+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\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T18:40:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1576,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\",\"name\":\"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T18:40:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - 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\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T18:40:43+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\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T18:40:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008"},"wordCount":1576,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008","name":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T18:40:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-solid-containers-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Solid Containers Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 29 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/74931","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=74931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}