Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Allahabad High Court Upholds Assessee's Appeal on Income Tax Valuation Issue</h1> <h3>The Commissioner Of Income Tax Moradabad & Another Versus M/s Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. Rahe-Raza Rampur</h3> The Commissioner Of Income Tax Moradabad & Another Versus M/s Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. Rahe-Raza Rampur - TMI Issues:1. Valuation of closing stock - under valuation and additions made by Assessing Officer.2. Compliance with accounting standards and inclusion of interest and depreciation in closing stock.3. Application of relevant legal principles and judgments in determining the valuation of closing stock.Issue 1: Valuation of closing stock - under valuation and additions made by Assessing OfficerThe case involved an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the closing stock due to under valuation, specifically regarding depreciation and interest. The assessee contended that their accounting practices were consistent with previous years and that the additions were unjustified. The CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order, but the Tribunal later granted relief and deleted the additions in the closing stock. The department argued that the valuation was incorrect based on a judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. British Paints India Ltd., (1999) 188 ITR 44. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier order without detailed reasoning, leading to a lack of clarity on the grounds for deleting the additions.Issue 2: Compliance with accounting standards and inclusion of interest and depreciation in closing stockThe key contention revolved around the inclusion of interest and depreciation in the closing stock valuation. The assessee maintained that their accounting standards did not require such inclusion, and past instances of similar additions were overturned on appeal. The department failed to dispute the consistency in the assessee's accounting practices. Legal precedents such as Ram Swarup Bengalimal Vs. CIT and CIT Vs. Indian National Tannery Pvt. Ltd. emphasized the principles of valuing closing stock at cost or market price, whichever is lower, and maintaining consistency in accounting methods. The Apex Court's rulings in United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. further supported the assessee's position on valuation principles and method adoption.Issue 3: Application of relevant legal principles and judgments in determining the valuation of closing stockThe judgment extensively referred to various legal precedents to support the assessee's argument regarding the valuation of closing stock. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining consistent accounting practices and valuing stock based on accepted principles. The decision emphasized that while the assessee has the flexibility to adopt accounting methods, the ultimate goal is to disclose the true and proper income. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as it aligned with established legal principles and previous rulings. The judgment concluded in favor of the assessee on the first issue, while declining to address the second question due to the lack of discussion in the Tribunal's order.In conclusion, the judgment from the Allahabad High Court addressed the issues surrounding the valuation of closing stock, compliance with accounting standards, and the application of relevant legal principles in determining the income tax assessment for the relevant year. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer and highlighted the importance of consistency in accounting practices and adherence to established valuation principles.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found