<?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>1925 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285527</link>
    <description>An assessee who had elected and been assessed on a market-value basis for closing stock in one year could not, in the succeeding year, reopen the same stock at historical purchase cost for trading profit computation. On mercantile principles, the opening stock had to be carried forward at the value already fixed and accepted in the prior year, unless that valuation was shown to be mistaken. Allowing a shift back to purchase cost would duplicate the same loss and distort the true trading result. The Revenue&#039;s method of computation was therefore upheld, and the assessee&#039;s substitution of purchase price was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:19:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1925 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285527</link>
      <description>An assessee who had elected and been assessed on a market-value basis for closing stock in one year could not, in the succeeding year, reopen the same stock at historical purchase cost for trading profit computation. On mercantile principles, the opening stock had to be carried forward at the value already fixed and accepted in the prior year, unless that valuation was shown to be mistaken. Allowing a shift back to purchase cost would duplicate the same loss and distort the true trading result. The Revenue&#039;s method of computation was therefore upheld, and the assessee&#039;s substitution of purchase price was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>