Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. Duple ... on 18 March, 1960

British Paints India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 August, 1974

Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 60 ITR 531 (Mad); observations of Viscount Haldane in Sun Insurance Office v. Clark [1912] AC 443, 455 (HL), observations of Lord Reid in Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1961] 1 WLR 739, 755 (HL), in B.S.C. Footwear Ltd. v. Ridgway [197-i] 2 WLR 1313, 1315; [1972] 83 ITR 269, 272 (HL)].
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 52 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Madras Co-Operative Central Land ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 11 March, 1962

In support of this contention learned counsel cited to us the decision of the House of Lords in Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime. In that case a company carried on the trade of building motor bodies and it had since 1924 used the direct cost method of ascertaining the cost of work-in-progress under which the cost of direct materials and labour alone was taken into account. For the years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, assessments were made on the company to income-tax on the footing that the cost of works-in-progress should be arrived at by the "on cost" method under which a proportion of indirect expenses, that is, factory and office expenses, etc., was added to the direct cost. The Special Commissioners found that the accountancy profession was satisfied that either method would produce a true figure of profit for income-tax purposes and that which method should be used was a matter of policy for the decision of the directors of the company. The Commissioners decided, however, that in order to arrive at a true figure of the cost of work-in-progress a proportion of factory over-heads but not of other indirect expenses should be taken into account. It was held that on the facts and findings there was no justification for requiring the company to change from its practice of using the direct cost method. That was a case in which the only question was how the cost of work had to be computed, whether it should be what was called the direct cost method or the "on cost" method. That the assessee had a right to value the cost in any manner it liked provided the true profits and gains were worked out, reasonably and rationally, was not in dispute. The House of Lords decided that there was no justification to compel the assessee to follow one method in preference to the other. At page 566, Viscount Simonds observed thus :
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Modern Theatres Ltd. on 3 December, 1962

Section 13 is emphatice and assures the assessee the right to have his own method of accounting. The logical corollary of that provision is that the department cannot impose another mehtod of accounting different from the assessees method on grounds of convenience, expendiency or the like. This principle of non-interference with the method of accounting regularly adopted by the assessee is stated quite clearly by the House of Lords in Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime. That case dealt with an assessee which was a company carrying on business as builders of motor bodies. Since 1924 the company used the direct cost method of ascertaining the cost of work-in-progress under which the cost of direct materials and labour were alone taken into account. Assessment to income-tax was made upon the company under Case I of Schedule D for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, on the footing that the cost of work-in-progress should be arrived at by the "on cost" method under which a proportion of indirect expenditure, that is, factory and office expenses, etc., was added to the direct cost. On appeal the Special Commissioners found that the accountancy profession was satisfied that either method would produce a true figure of profit for income-tax purposes, and that which method should be used was a matter of policy for the decision of the directors of a company. The Commissioners decided however that in order to arrive at a true figure of the cost of work-in-progress, a proportion of factory overheads but not of other indirect expenditure should be taken into account. It was held that the facts and findings in the case did not justify requiring the company to change from its practice of using the direct cost method. At page 572 Lord Reid observed thus :
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation ... vs Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 June, 1981

It is true as stated by Viscount Simonds in Duple Motor Bodies v. Ostime [1961] 39 TC 537, 566 (HL). 'The practice of accountants though it were general or even universal, could not by itself determine the amount of profits and gains of a trade for tax purposes.' It has also been stated by Lord Reid in that case that normally a court attaches great weight to the view of the accountancy profession though the court must always have the last word.
Calcutta High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 24 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Arasan Aluminium Industries (P.) Ltd. vs First Income-Tax Officer on 29 March, 1996

In fact, it quoted with a pproval the opinion of Lord Viscount Simonds in Duple Motor bodies Ltd. v. Ostime 139 TC 537 (HL) reproduced in the said decision in L. G. Baaalakrishnan & Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supea). "the practice of accountants, though it were general or even universal could not by itself determine the amount of lprofit and gains of a trade for taxd purposes ... Normally a court attaches great weight to the view of the accountancy oprofesswion though the court must allways have the last word (per Lord Reid)." It therefore follows that Madras High Court also held that "great weight" should be attached "to the view of the accountancy profession though the court must always have the last word".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Company ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 21 January, 1963

10. It was urged that the above valuation given in e balance-sheet did not disclose that the stock of yarn in process was valued at 12 nP. per kh. Petitioner, therefore, could not be said to have disclose primary acts necessary for assessment for that year. As discussed above, as the method of valuation adopted by e petitioner over a number of year was known to the Department. Since no departure was made, it should have been at cost,. it had valued stock at 12 nP per kg. as in the past. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had not disclosed the primary facts. But apart form that, the petitioner was required to file the balance-sheet along with the return by virtue of the relevant provisions of the rules framed under the Act and that would mean that the balance-sheet so filed was part of the return itself. When the petitioner stated in the balance-sheet that the stock of yarn in process was valued at case, the ITO should have been pure on inquiry and it was his duty to find out what method the petitioner had followed in working out the cost of stock. As held by the House of Lords in Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime [1961] 39 TC 537, it is permissible to value stock at a figure higher or even lower than what is arrived at by showing cost method. Therefore, if, as urged on behalf of the Revenue, the method of valuation followed by the petitioner was not known to the ITO, assessing the petitioner to income-tax for the year under the reference, it was his duty to investigate into the facts and find out what exactly was th method which was followed by e petitioner in valuing the stock and en to draw the correct inference on the basis of the fact found. On the facts and in there circumstances of the case, prima faces, the appendage of label which the petitioner gave to the method of valuation of stock of yarn, namely valuation of stock at cost, its not by itself a primary fact. But even assuming that the description accordingly given by the petitioner about the method of valuation constitute a primary fact, it was the duty of the ITO to make an investigation into the facts and draw a correct inference from the facts found by him and to decide, inter alia, whether or not the stock can be said to have been valued at cost, as claimed by the petitioner having regard to the method adopted. it was not part of the duty or responsibility of the petitioner to advise the ITO with regard to the true and correct infernos which should be drawn form the primary facts as regard the method of valuation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Company ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 21 January, 1983

11. It was urged that the above valuation given in the balance-sheet did not disclose that the stock of yarn in process was valued at 12 nP. per kg. Petitioner, therefore, could not be said to have disclosed primary facts necessary for assessment for that year. As discussed above, the method of valuation adopted by the petitioner over a number of years was known to the Department. Since no departure was made, it should have been presumed that when the petitioner stated that yarn in process was valued at cost; it had valued stock at 12 nP. per kg. as in the past. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had not disclosed the primary facts. But apart from that, the petitioner was required to file the balance-sheet along with the return by virtue of the relevant provisions of the rules framed under the Act and that would mean that the balance-sheet so filed was part of the return itself. When the petitioner stated in the balance-sheet that the stock of yarn in process was valued at cost, the ITO should have been put on inquiry and it was his duty to find out what method the petitioner had followed in working out the cost of stock. As held by the House of Lords in Duple Motor Bodies Ltd. v. Ostime [1961] 39 TC 537, it is permissible to value stock at a figure higher or even lower than what is arrived at by showing cost method. Therefore, if, as urged on behalf of the Revenue, the method of valuation followed by the petitioner was not known to the ITO, assessing the petitioner to income-tax for the year under reference, it was his duty to investigate into the facts and find out what exactly was the method which was followed by the petitioner in valuing the stock and then to draw the correct inference on the basis of the facts found. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, prima facie, the appendage of label which the petitioner gave to the method of valuation of stock of yarn, namely valuation of stock at cost, is not by itself a primary fact. But even assuming that the description accordingly given by the petitioner about the method of valuation constitutes a primary fact, it was the duty of the ITO to make an investigation into the facts and draw a correct inference from the facts found by him and to decide, inter alia, whether or not the stock can be said to have been valued at cost, as claimed by the petitioner having regard to the method adopted. It was not part of the duty or responsibility of the petitioner to advise the ITO with regard to the true and correct inferences which should be drawn from the primary facts as regards the method of valuation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1