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
  • 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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Decision on Valuing Closing Stock & Excise Duty Inclusion</h1> <h3>Godfrey Phillips India Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> Godfrey Phillips India Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - ITD 041, 544, Issues Involved:1. Rejection by the CIT (Appeals) of the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for valuing the closing stock.2. Whether the excise duty should be included in the valuation of closing stock.3. Applicability of proviso to section 145(1) of the IT Act.4. Bona fides of the change in the method of accounting by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection by the CIT (Appeals) of the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for valuing the closing stock:The assessee, a manufacturer of cigarettes, changed its method of accounting for excise duty and the valuation of stocks of duty-paid finished goods starting from the assessment year 1981-82. The CIT (Appeals) rejected this change, leading to additions of Rs. 92,03,357 for AY 1981-82, Rs. 60,62,910 for AY 1982-83, and Rs. 1,68,73,765 for AY 1983-84. The assessee argued that the change was in line with the guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) in October 1979. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept this change, stating that the guidelines were not binding and did not have statutory force under the IT Act. The AO further argued that excluding excise duty from the valuation of finished goods would distort the true income of the assessee.2. Whether the excise duty should be included in the valuation of closing stock:The CIT (Appeals) examined the matter in detail and referred to various paragraphs of the Guidance Note on accounting treatment of excise duty published by the ICAI. The CIT (Appeals) noted that excise duty is a cost directly attributable to the manufacturing process and should be included in the valuation of inventories. The CIT (Appeals) also referred to judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's observation in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, which stated that excise duty is directly relatable to manufacture and should be included in the cost of production.3. Applicability of proviso to section 145(1) of the IT Act:The CIT (Appeals) upheld the AO's application of the proviso to section 145(1), which allows the AO to reject the assessee's accounts if they do not reflect the true income. The CIT (Appeals) referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT, which emphasized that the purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of goods entered on the other side of the account. The CIT (Appeals) concluded that the new method of valuation introduced by the assessee did not serve this purpose and justified the AO's invocation of the proviso to section 145(1).4. Bona fides of the change in the method of accounting by the assessee:The assessee argued that the change in the method of accounting was bona fide and consistent with the ICAI's Guidance Note. The assessee cited various judicial decisions supporting the right to change the method of valuation of stock if it is bona fide and consistent. However, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the change was not bona fide, as it resulted in a significant reduction in taxable income. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion of excise duty from the valuation of closing stock would result in a distorted picture of the true state of the business, as observed by the Supreme Court in British Paints (India) Ltd. v. CIT.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision to reject the change in the method of accounting for valuing the closing stock and confirmed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that excise duty should be included in the valuation of closing stock, as it is directly attributable to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal also supported the application of the proviso to section 145(1) and found that the change in the method of accounting was not bona fide. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found