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>Supreme Court: Stock-in-Trade Valuation for Taxable Income</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras Versus A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar And Others</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras Versus A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar And Others - [1964] 53 ITR 122 Issues Involved:1. Correctness of the estimated value of the exploitation rights of the film.2. Application of the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act.3. Method of accounting employed by the assessee.4. Computation of profits and gains of business under the Income-tax Act.5. Role of stock valuation in computing taxable income.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Correctness of the Estimated Value of the Exploitation Rights of the Film:The respondent firm challenged the valuation of the exploitation rights of the film at Rs. 65,000 by the Income-tax Officer, arguing that the true value was Rs. 4,000, as reflected in the dissolution deed where a retiring partner relinquished his half share for Rs. 2,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention, holding that the valuation in the dissolution deed was 'dictated by extra-commercial considerations' and confirmed the Rs. 65,000 valuation. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal partially upheld the firm's plea, reducing the valuation to Rs. 40,000.2. Application of the Proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act:The High Court held that the assessee could maintain accounts according to a recognized system of accounting and that the Income-tax Officer had no power under the proviso to section 13 to force a different system on the assessee. The High Court observed, 'When we reach the position that it was the cash system that the assessee had adopted in this case, and that valuation of the closing stock was not an incident of that system for ascertaining the profits, it should be obvious that the Income-tax Officer had no power under the proviso to section 13 to force a different system on the assessee either the mercantile system or a hybrid system of cash plus valuation of closing stock.'3. Method of Accounting Employed by the Assessee:The Income-tax Officer observed that the firm had not made a stock valuation of the film and had merely taken the excess collection over the purchase value. The High Court held that the assessee had adopted the cash system of accounting, and the Tribunal had no reason to discard that system. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Income-tax Officer implicitly indicated that without valuation of the unexpired exploitation rights, the profits of the year could not be computed accurately.4. Computation of Profits and Gains of Business Under the Income-tax Act:Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that tax shall be payable under the head 'Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation.' Section 13 mandates that income, profits, and gains shall be computed according to the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. However, if the method employed is such that the income cannot be properly deduced, the Income-tax Officer may determine the computation basis. The Supreme Court noted that the Income-tax Officer is not compelled to accept a balance-sheet of cash receipts and outgoings prepared from the books of account but must compute the income in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.5. Role of Stock Valuation in Computing Taxable Income:The Supreme Court emphasized that in computing the true profits of a trading venture, the stock-in-trade must be taken into account. Ignoring the value of the stock-in-trade at the end of the year while debiting its value at the commencement would give a false picture of the firm's profits. The Court highlighted that the Income-tax Act charges tax on income, profits, and gains, not on receipts, and taxable profits cannot be deduced from cash receipts alone. The Court referenced English case law, noting that for accurate profit assessment, the value of stock-in-trade at the beginning and end of the year must be considered.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding that the Income-tax Officer was bound by the assessee's choice of the cash system of accounting and could not add the value of the stock-in-trade at the end of the year. The appeal was allowed, and the answer to the question referred to the High Court was in the affirmative. The Commissioner was entitled to costs in the Supreme Court as well as in the High Court.Appeal allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found