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 :

        2022 (6) TMI 223 - 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 overturns decision on stock valuation, stresses evidence requirement The Tribunal set aside the decision deleting the addition of Rs. 4,23,32,795/- for under-valuation of closing stock of rice, restoring the matter to the ...
                        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 overturns decision on stock valuation, stresses evidence requirement

                            The Tribunal set aside the decision deleting the addition of Rs. 4,23,32,795/- for under-valuation of closing stock of rice, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper evidence to support stock valuation and criticized the acceptance of additional evidence without allowing verification by the AO. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of consistent and verifiable stock valuation methods.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Justification of deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,23,32,795/- on account of under-valuation of closing stock of rice.
                            2. Maintenance and verification of quality-wise stock details.
                            3. Acceptance of additional evidence by the CIT(A) without allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify.
                            4. Use of bank stock statements for valuation purposes.
                            5. Consistency in the method of valuation of opening and closing stock.

                            Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Justification of Deletion of Addition:
                            The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,23,32,795/- made by the AO for under-valuation of closing stock of rice. The AO revalued the closing stock based on the average rate of rice in stock statements furnished to the bank, leading to an addition of Rs. 4,23,32,795/- to the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the closing stock of the previous year, which was accepted by the department, could not be challenged without supporting evidence.

                            2. Maintenance and Verification of Quality-wise Stock Details:
                            The AO contended that the assessee did not maintain quality-wise stock details of rice, which made it difficult to ascertain the quantity and quality of stock at any point in time. The AO argued that the stock register, purchase bills, and stock statements furnished to the bank did not mention the quality of rice, which led to the conclusion that the assessee under-valued its closing stock.

                            3. Acceptance of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):
                            The CIT(A) accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing the AO with a reasonable opportunity to verify the documents. The CIT-DR argued that this denied the AO a fair chance to examine the evidence, and the order of the CIT(A) was non-reasoned and lacked basis for valuation.

                            4. Use of Bank Stock Statements for Valuation Purposes:
                            The AO used the average rate of rice reported in stock statements furnished to the bank for valuation purposes. The CIT(A) rejected this approach, citing judicial precedents that held stock statements submitted to banks as unreliable for income tax purposes. The CIT(A) referenced several court decisions, including CIT vs. Veerdip Roller (P) Ltd. and CIT vs. Sidhu Rice & General Mills, which supported the view that bank stock statements should not be used for valuation.

                            5. Consistency in Method of Valuation of Opening and Closing Stock:
                            The CIT(A) emphasized that the closing stock of the previous year, which was accepted by the department, should be consistent with the opening stock of the current year. The CIT(A) held that the AO could not reject the opening stock valuation without supporting evidence, and the method of valuation adopted by the AO for closing stock should also apply to opening stock.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal found that the assessee-firm failed to explain the valuation of quality-wise closing stock of rice and that the valuation submitted to the bank was not supported in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not address the factual discrepancies pointed out by the AO and accepted additional evidence without allowing the AO to verify it. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a denovo adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate its case with proper evidence and ensuring that the AO is given adequate opportunity to verify the stock valuation. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
                            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