<?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>1928 (2) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290446</link>
    <description>In computing assessable business profits, stock-in-trade must be valued at its true figure at both the beginning and the end of the year so that the year&#039;s profits reflect reality. An erroneous opening stock valuation cannot be left unchanged merely because it carried forward from the prior year and then corrected only at closing, as that would distort profits by preserving a fictitious figure. The court distinguished earlier authority on the basis that it did not require an incorrect opening balance to be maintained. It also noted that there was no proved material of fraud or dishonest manipulation, and that other statutory provisions addressed improper undervaluation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2020 12:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (2) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290446</link>
      <description>In computing assessable business profits, stock-in-trade must be valued at its true figure at both the beginning and the end of the year so that the year&#039;s profits reflect reality. An erroneous opening stock valuation cannot be left unchanged merely because it carried forward from the prior year and then corrected only at closing, as that would distort profits by preserving a fictitious figure. The court distinguished earlier authority on the basis that it did not require an incorrect opening balance to be maintained. It also noted that there was no proved material of fraud or dishonest manipulation, and that other statutory provisions addressed improper undervaluation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>