Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.46 seconds)Section 142 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
British Paints India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 August, 1974
The decision of the Calcutta High Court in British Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 53 is distinguishable. In that case, the assessee had been following the practice in the past to value the goods-in-process and finished goods at the cost of raw materials only. It was also noticed that paintings had very short shelf life. On those facts, it was held that there was evidence that the method followed was a regular method having regard to the nature and type of business carried on by a particular assessee. That decision has no application to the instant case as there, from the beginning, the work-in-progress was valued at material cost whereas in the instant case, the regular method followed by the assessee all along was material cost plus direct wages and in this year, the method has been changed to material cost. The product manufactured by the assessee is not one which had short shelf life as was the position in the above case. Hence, that decision has no application. In fact, in that very decision it is observed as under :
Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953
In Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481, the Supreme Court held that the closing stock is to be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower.
The Indo-Commercial Bank, Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 March, 1961
This decision was followed by the Madras High Court in Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 22. In this case, the bank valued the securities at cost at the commencement of 1951 but valued them at the market value at the end of 1951. This was done as the Reserve Bank allowed the scheduled banks to value their holdings of securities at the current market price. Thus, in that case, the Reserve Bank had allowed the assessee-bank to value their holdings of securities at the market price. There is no such circumstance in the assessee's case. Further, the assessee has not valued the closing work-in-progress at cost or market price, whichever is lower, as laid down in the above cases. Thus, in our view, the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accepting the change in the method of valuation of the closing work-in-progress by reference to material cost are not valid and cannot be upheld. Thus, we reverse his order on this point and restore the addition of Rs. 35,81,189.
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 April, 1970
15. In the instant case, the increase in the authorised capital is by way of issue of bonus shares. Thus, the fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase in the authorised capital by issue of bonus shares is revenue expenditure. The ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in the above case squarely applies to the instant case. For the above reasons, we uphold the allowance of Rs. 66,920 as revenue expenditure.
Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971
In view of these facts, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not right in applying the ratio laid down therein to the facts of the instant case.