1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal favors Revenue on stock valuation, cites jurisdictional limits under IT Act</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the valuation of stock on dissolution of a firm, upholding the CIT's order to value stocks at market ... - Issues:- Valuation of stock on dissolution of a firm- Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the IT ActAnalysis:Issue 1: Valuation of stock on dissolution of a firmThe assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 55,577 to its total income due to undervaluation of stock on dissolution of the firm. The CIT invoked powers under section 263, valuing the stock at market value based on various court decisions. The assessee argued against this valuation, citing Supreme Court rulings that there is no transfer to a partner at dissolution, and stock should be valued at cost. The Tribunal considered these arguments but upheld the CIT's order, stating that stocks on hand at dissolution must be valued at market price. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and ruled in favor of the Revenue.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the IT ActThe assessee contended that the CIT's order was beyond the time limit prescribed by law, as the amendment to section 263 was effective from 1st Oct., 1984. The CIT passed the order on 17th Feb., 1987, after the order of the ITO on 28th June, 1984. The Departmental Representative argued that the amendment was clarificatory and the order was within the time limit. The Tribunal analyzed the legality of the CIT's jurisdiction and concluded that the order was time-barred. Citing precedents and the Board's circular, the Tribunal held that the CIT could not obtain jurisdiction after 27th June, 1986, under section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order on jurisdictional grounds.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the valuation of stock at market price on dissolution of the firm but setting aside the CIT's order on jurisdictional grounds.