Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.96 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 145A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953
29. In the later part of the judgment, it has been observed that the object of stock valuation is the correct determination of the profit and loss account resulting from a year's trading activity. It is the true result of the trading activity of that year that must be disclosed by the books. Thereafter, a passage from its earlier judgment in Chainrup Sampatram versus CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481, which reads as followed, has been reproduced below:
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd on 18 May, 2007
30. The ratio laid down therein is that all cost including cost of raw material for the goods in process and finished goods should be included for the purposes of valuation of stock in trade. It reiterated that the closing stock should be valued either at the market price of the material or at the cost price of the raw material inclusive of all the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the said cost of the raw material. Therefore, even before the introduction of Section 145-A , it was laid down that the closing stock should be valued either at cost price or market price whichever is lower. The cost price includes all the taxes etc. paid by the assessee to bring the material at his place. The aforesaid decision has been referred in a subsequent decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur versus Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 4 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court has held that an assessee has no right in writing down the value of goods in stock below the cost price by estimating its net revisable value. It has been held that if the fall in the price has the effect of merely reducing the prospective profits, there would be no justification to discard the valuation of cost.
S. Narayanappa & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 27 September, 1966
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein certain judgements of the Apex Court has been relied upon, and submtited that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in starting proceedings under section 147 is open to challenge in a court of law as held in S.Narayannappa versus CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons versus First Additional ITO (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Versus ITO(1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC); Sowdagar Ahmed Khan verus ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO v.Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO versus Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) and State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh(1994) 3 SCC 299.
Kantamani Venkata Narayana & Sons vs First Additional Income-Tax ... on 27 October, 1966
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113, wherein certain judgements of the Apex Court has been relied upon, and submtited that the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Assessing Officer in starting proceedings under section 147 is open to challenge in a court of law as held in S.Narayannappa versus CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC): Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons versus First Additional ITO (1967) 63 ITR 638 (SC); Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Versus ITO(1970) 77 ITR 268 (SC); Sowdagar Ahmed Khan verus ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO v.Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO versus Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST v. Bhagwan Industries (P) Ltd. (1973) 31 STC 293 (SC) and State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh(1994) 3 SCC 299.