Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning ... on 18 April, 1995
The Appellant's case is squarely covered by the Exide Industry's case. Therefore, following
the jurisdictional High Court's order which in turn had followed the order of the Apex Court,
the addition made by the AO by way of disallowance of excise duty payment to
Rs.276,12,87,066/- is deleted."
M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd vs C.I.T., Delhi-V on 28 March, 2017
08. We note that the deduction claimed in the earlier year i.e. AY 2005-06 of
Rs.270,06,83,951/- was added back in the relevant assessment year under consideration i.e.
AY 2006-07. This treatment is inconsonance with the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court decision in Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC). We note that
similar issues arose in subsequent year in assessee's own case for AYs. 2009-10, 2008-09
and 2007-08 and the Tribunal held that the treatment carried out by the assessee in respect
of the excise duty as legally tenable. We note that in identical case the decision of the
Coodinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries Ltd., AY 2006-07 was
upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 158/2013 vide order dated
20.01.2014 and the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the Tribunal's order in ordering deletion of the
addition made by the AO. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by
Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Therefore, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Section 145A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dcit, Cir-4, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata on 3 February, 2017
"Since the closing stock is (mostly) cleared in the subsequent year prior to due date of
filing of return of income, it claims deduction for excise duty on the clearance out of
the same as per proviso of section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. As and when it files return
of income for the subsequent year, it adds back excise duty on opening stock as the
same had already been claimed as deduction in the return of the preceding year in
form of excise duty on (the then) closing stock. I do not see as to how the same can be
called claiming deduction doubly. In fact, the entire exercise is revenue neutral over
the period of a few years. Even for a single year, the method appears-to be in
conformity with well accepted principle of accounting as well as the provision of
section 145A and Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. It is noted, that this issue was
examined by Kolkata bench of Tribunal in ITA No.1640IKoI12012 in the case of DCIT
Cir-I, Kolkata Vs. Exide Industries Ltd A. Y. 2006-07, in which addition for similar
ground had been made. In its order dated 19.04.2013, the tribunal had, following its
own order in the earlier assessment years, deleted the disallowance with the following
observation:
C.I.T. Kolkata-I vs Exide Industries Ltd on 12 June, 2014
Appeal filed by the department against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court in CIT, Kolkata-I Vs. Exide Industries Ltd ITA No. 158/2013 vide
order dated 20.01.2014. Thus, the issue is now covered in favour of the appellant by
the order of jurisdictional bench of Hon'ble Tribunal, confirmed by Hon'ble High
Court. In view of the same, the addition made by the A.O. by way of disallowance of
excise duty payment amounting to Rs. 270,06,83,951/- is deleted."
1