Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala on 15 May, 2007
The above finding given by the C.I.T.(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal. It is also seen that the assessee's first year of business was the assessment year 1991-92 and for the said year, the assessee valued the closing stock of shares at the market value as this was less than the cost price. From the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee changed the method of valuation to cost price as that happened to be less than the market price. Further it is seen that there is no finding to the effect that the assessee had resorted to an adhoc change in valuation merely to secure any temporary gain or advantage. The concurrent findings given by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.Mohanakala (291 ITR 278) held that whenever there is a concurrent factual finding by the authorities below, the same should be accepted and no interference should be called for by the High Court. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference.
1