TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs reassessment on stock valuation, warehouse charges, related party purchases, and depreciation claim</h1> <h3>Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,</h3> Sanwaria Agroils Limited, Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, - TMI Issues:1. Valuation of closing stock using FIFO method2. Disallowance of warehouse charges under Sections 80IB(13) and 40A(2)3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii)(b) for purchases from a sister concern4. Additional ground for reworking depreciation claimValuation of Closing Stock using FIFO Method:The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 24,63,157 on the grounds of alleged suppression in the valuation of closing stock. The Assessing Officer had observed that the closing stock value for wheat and coal was understated compared to the average purchase price during the year. The appellant argued that they consistently valued closing stock using the FIFO method, while the Assessing Officer applied the average rate of purchase, leading to the addition. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the Tax Audit Report and past assessment orders supported the consistent use of FIFO method. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the detailed FIFO method calculation provided by the appellant for a fair assessment.Disallowance of Warehouse Charges under Sections 80IB(13) and 40A(2):The Assessing Officer disallowed warehouse charges, citing that payments to a sister concern enjoying exemption under Section 80IB warranted disallowance in the appellant's hands. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that any excess payment should be disallowed only if it exceeds fair market value, under Section 40A(3). Noting the lack of evidence on fair market value, the Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's order and directed a reconsideration under Section 40A(2B), emphasizing that any disallowance should be based on comparison with fair market value.Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii)(b) for Purchases from Sister Concern:The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases made from a sister concern under Section 40(a)(ii)(b), based on detailed calculations of payments made compared to prevailing market rates. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, finding no evidence to challenge the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the purchases from the sister concern.Additional Ground for Reworking Depreciation Claim:The appellant raised an additional ground for reworking the depreciation claim due to a disallowance in the previous assessment year. As this ground was not presented before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal restored it for reconsideration, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the depreciation claim in accordance with the Income Tax Rules and relevant provisions of the Act.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part for statistical purposes, with specific directions provided for each issue raised by the appellant regarding the valuation of closing stock, disallowance of warehouse charges, purchases from a sister concern, and the reworking of the depreciation claim.
TaxTMI 