https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761185 Section 145A, read with ICDS II and Notification No. 87/2016, was upheld as a uniform inventory valuation prescription for assessees computing business income. The exclusion of LIFO was not treated as arbitrary or discriminatory because the rule applied equally within the relevant class and was linked to consistency and uniformity in income computation. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed, as there is no vested right to insist on one accounting method where Parliament has mandated another, and economic legislation is reviewed with restraint. The constitutional validity of the amended framework was therefore sustained. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 18:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761185 Section 145A, read with ICDS II and Notification No. 87/2016, was upheld as a uniform inventory valuation prescription for assessees computing business income. The exclusion of LIFO was not treated as arbitrary or discriminatory because the rule applied equally within the relevant class and was linked to consistency and uniformity in income computation. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed, as there is no vested right to insist on one accounting method where Parliament has mandated another, and economic legislation is reviewed with restraint. The constitutional validity of the amended framework was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761185