https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121897 The commentary addresses two income-tax issues. First, deduction for amortised preliminary expenses under section 35D(2)(c)(iv) was accepted on the basis of consistency, as the same claim had been allowed in earlier years and no distinguishing facts were shown. Second, closing stock of polished diamonds had to be valued strictly in accordance with the assessee's declared net realisable value method; absence of quality-wise stock records did not by itself justify rejection of accounts under section 145, but valuation based on next-year sales was not permissible for year-end stock. The stock valuation issue was therefore restored for limited reconsideration on proper application of the declared method. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:45:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121897 The commentary addresses two income-tax issues. First, deduction for amortised preliminary expenses under section 35D(2)(c)(iv) was accepted on the basis of consistency, as the same claim had been allowed in earlier years and no distinguishing facts were shown. Second, closing stock of polished diamonds had to be valued strictly in accordance with the assessee's declared net realisable value method; absence of quality-wise stock records did not by itself justify rejection of accounts under section 145, but valuation based on next-year sales was not permissible for year-end stock. The stock valuation issue was therefore restored for limited reconsideration on proper application of the declared method. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121897