Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Lenses Centre vs Income Tax Officer. on 23 July, 1996 cites

G. R. Ramachari And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 8 September, 1960

In both the cases before the Kerala High Court (supra), for purposes of settlement of accounts the closing stock of spare parts was distributed among the partners at a price at which the firm had purchased them and the Court, by following the decision in the case of G. R. Ramachari & Co. (supra), held that it is the market price which is to be taken for the purpose of arriving at true profits earned by the firm.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Popular Workshops vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 December, 1985

The earlier decision in the case of Popular Workshops (supra) was sought to be reconsidered in the subsequent case of Popular Automobiles (supra) on the basis of some agreement express or implied for taking the stock at a particular figure. Their Lordships held that an agreement express or implied with reference to taking of accounts has been held to be applicable only to the case of a continuing partnership and not when the firm is finally dissolved or when one of the partners has retired. Therefore, on the dissolution of a firm, the stock-in-trade has to be valued with reference to the market value and not with reference to the book value in order to arrive at the true profit earned by the firm during the relevant previous year.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - T K Thommen - Full Document

N. Muhammad Ussain Sahib And Anr. vs S.N. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib And Ors. on 5 August, 1949

At page 306 of the reports (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the decision in the case of Muhammad Ussain Sahib vs. S. N. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib AIR 1950 Mad 758 correctly sets out the mode of taking accounts regarding the assets of a firm. While the valuation of assets during the subsistence of the partnership would be immaterial and could even be notional, the position at the point of dissolution is totally different. The following passage from the said decision, at page 759 of the reports (AIR 1950) was quoted :
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Sha Raichand Chagganraj And Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 23 April, 1986

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Sri Krishna Crucible Works (supra) is in accordance with the decisions of the Madras High Court, the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court aforesaid, besides the recent decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Sha Raichand Chagganraj & Co. (supra). We, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, answer the question referred to us, and hold that it is the market value of the closing stock which has to be taken into consideration for arriving at the profit and no option is valuable to the assessee at the point of termination of business to value the stock at a price other than the market price.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1