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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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

        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>High Court affirms exclusion of work-in-progress value in income calculation</h1> The High Court upheld the decision in favor of the respondent-assessee, emphasizing that the method adopted for accounting work-in-progress was fair and ... Method of Accounting- Consistent Practice- The respondent-assessee is a registered firm. . It had entered into an agreement with the Reserve Bank of India for developing the property on commercial scale and thereafter to sell the land and property on package deal basis. The assessee had adopted a consistent practice of not disclosing the work-in-progress while working its profit and loss. The profits as disclosed during the previous assessment year, i.e., 1986-87 and the subsequent assessment year 1988-89 on this basis had been accepted by the Department. However, during the assessment years in question the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.5,47,000 being the value of the work-in-progress. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who even though held that the value of the work-in-progress ought to be disclosed and taken into account while working out the profits, yet in the special circumstances of the present case as the trade results have been accepted both in the previous year and the subsequent year, it will disturb the entire method adopted by the assessee and would lead to reopening and adjustment in the opening and closing stock of the previous and subsequent year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, accepted the claim of the assessee. Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner(Appeals). Held that- The rate of profits shown by the assessee is more than 10 per cent. without retention money and the profits result of the year is fair and reasonable by any standard and the books of account have been regularly maintained and no fault has been found in them. Further the expenses allowed in the past had not been claimed against the money received this year and for the work done in the last year - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues:1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disturbing the system of accounting regularly adopted by the assesseeRs.2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not considering the full value of closing stock of work-in-progress for computing the correct income of the assesseeRs.Analysis:1. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1987-88, where the respondent-assessee, a registered firm engaged in real estate development, had consistently not disclosed work-in-progress while calculating profits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,47,000 for the value of work-in-progress, which was contested by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) acknowledged the need to disclose work-in-progress but refrained from disturbing the method due to accepted trade results in previous and subsequent years. The High Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the method adopted by the assessee was fair and reasonable, with profits exceeding 10% and proper maintenance of accounts.2. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that work-in-progress should have been considered for computing true profits. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 5,47,000, stating that adjusting the value of work-in-progress would require modifications in opening stock. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, noting that the assessee's profit percentage was satisfactory, expenses were appropriately managed, and no discrepancies were found in the accounts. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to exclude the value of work-in-progress while computing the assessee's income for the relevant assessment year.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found