Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax Del vs Indian Sugar & Gen. Industry Export ... on 30 January, 2012 cites

Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953

17. The next question is whether the respondent-assessee could have adopted Net Realizable Value method for valuation of the closing stock and whether it was mandatory to value the closing stock on cost basis. ITA Nos. 645/2005, 742/2005, 796/2005, 817/2005, 794/2005, 71/2011, 1166/2011 & 1168/2011. Page 14 of 23 This issue is no longer res integra and was settled by the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampatram v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - M P Sastri - Full Document

London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956

While anticipated loss is thus taken into account, anticipated profit in the shape of appreciated value of the closing stock is not brought into the account, as no prudent trader would care to show increased profit before its actual realisation. This is the theory underlying the rule that the closing stock is to be valued at cost or market price whichever is the lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy. As profits for income-tax purposes are to be computed in conformity with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting, unless of course, such principles have been superseded or modified by legislative enactments, unrealised profits in the shape of appreciated value of goods remaining unsold at the end of an accounting year and carried over to the following year's account in a business that is continuing are not brought into the charge as a matter of practice, though, as already stated, loss due to a fall in price below cost is allowed even if such loss has not been actually realised. As truly observed by one of the learned Judges in Whimster & Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1), "
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 326 - Full Document

M/S. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai on 24 November, 2005

645/2005, 742/2005, 796/2005, 817/2005, 794/2005, 71/2011, 1166/2011 & 1168/2011. Page 16 of 23 considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT Mumbai (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) and it has been observed that closing stock can be valued on cost price or at market price, if the market price is less than the cost. However, the said principle does not apply if the market value of the closing stock is more than the cost, as profits cannot be brought to tax on notional basis. In view of the aforesaid legal position there cannot be any doubt that the respondent-assessee was entitled to value the closing stock at cost price or market price whichever is lower. The respondent/assessee were admittedly exporting sugar and in view of the findings recorded above, closing stock could be valued at cost or market price, if it was lower than the cost price.The second question is accordingly answered in affirmative and in favour of the respondent- assessee and against the Revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 82 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999

25. In ITA No.1166/2011 an additional question of law has been raised by the Revenue. The contention of the appellant-Revenue is that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation in respect of lease hold rights in office/ flat, and car parking space etc. as the respondent/assessee was not the registered owner. We are not inclined to frame any question of law on the aforesaid question as this issue has to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 394 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1