<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (11) TMI 546 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126472</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confirming the deletion of the addition for under valuation of closing stock by non-inclusion of excise duty. The court held that excise duty should only be included in the value of goods if actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location. Since excise duty was not paid on the goods in stock, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:16:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 546 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126472</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confirming the deletion of the addition for under valuation of closing stock by non-inclusion of excise duty. The court held that excise duty should only be included in the value of goods if actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location. Since excise duty was not paid on the goods in stock, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>