Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2013 (12) TMI 239 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Tribunal Upholds Rs. 75,00,000 Stock Valuation, Dismisses Revenue Appeal The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 due to undervaluation of closing stock of ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal Upholds Rs. 75,00,000 Stock Valuation, Dismisses Revenue Appeal

                            The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 due to undervaluation of closing stock of land. The court recognized the impact of the legal dispute on the land's market value, supporting the reduced valuation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the assessee's valuation method based on the legal encumbrance affecting the land's value. The judgment highlighted the significance of legal and factual aspects in determining the closing stock valuation amidst ongoing legal disputes.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 75,00,000 on account of undervaluation of closing stock of land.
                            2. Basis for the valuation of closing stock.
                            3. Method of valuation of closing stock.
                            4. Impact of legal dispute on the valuation of land.

                            Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 75,00,000 on Account of Undervaluation of Closing Stock of Land:
                            The Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer due to the undervaluation of closing stock of land. The Assessing Officer had argued that the civil suit filed near the end of the financial year would not impact the value of the land as of March 31, 2006. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed this addition, considering the legal dispute and its impact on the land's market value.

                            2. Basis for the Valuation of Closing Stock:
                            The Revenue argued that the assessee did not provide a basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 75,00,000 for the undervaluation. The assessee countered that due to the legal dispute over the land, its market value had decreased, justifying the reduced valuation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's explanation that the legal dispute adversely impacted the land's price, thus supporting the reduced valuation.

                            3. Method of Valuation of Closing Stock:
                            The Assessing Officer claimed that the assessee was not permitted to change the method of valuation of closing stock from the cost price method to any other method. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the assessee consistently followed the method of valuing closing stock as cost or market price, whichever is less, and there was no deviation from this method. The tax audit report for the assessment year 2006-07 confirmed this consistent valuation method.

                            4. Impact of Legal Dispute on the Valuation of Land:
                            The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the legal dispute over the land, which was in the front of a larger piece of land intended for colony development, significantly impacted its market value. The court had granted a stay, which was confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, preventing the assessee from developing the land. This legal encumbrance justified the reduced valuation of the land by Rs. 75,00,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the assessee's valuation was correct and that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition of Rs. 75,00,000. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The cross-objections of the assessee, being supportive of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s findings, were also dismissed. The judgment emphasized the legal and factual considerations impacting the valuation of the closing stock of land due to the ongoing legal dispute.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found