TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd also the cross objection Nos.41/B/03 & 42/B/03 arising out of the assessment years 1992-93 & 1995-96 respectively, which had been preferred by the revenue before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal having allowed the appeals of the assessee in part for all the three assessment years and having dismissed the cross objection of the revenue relating to assessment year 1995-96, the revenue is in appeal before us by preferring three appeals for each of the assessment years referred to above. 4. The substantial questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in reversing the finding of the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeal) that Electron Guns and Electron Gun H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission of Sri. Thirumalesh, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant - revenue is that the Tribunal has gone wrong in totally misunderstanding the ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD.,' reported in 188 ITR 44[SC] and due to this error of understanding erroneously set aside the order of the Assessing Officer affirmed in appeal who had rightly applied the ratio in the case of BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD., [supra] and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal for all the three years is vitiated by wrong understanding of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD., [supra] etc. 7. It is also urged that as the assessee had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is also submitted that it is also an equally accepted principle that for the purpose of valuing the stock, the assessee has a choice of valuing the stock either at cost of acquisition or at market value whichever is lower and therefore when the assessee had uniformly valued this method, particularly, in the matter of valuing such part of the stock which had become either obsolete, goods rejected and returned by the customers and wherein they do not even have the value of the cost price and the assessee had valued such part of the stock at scrap value or 'nil', rejecting that method for the particular year when it had been accepted for other years is not permitted for the revenue; that the revenue cannot impose terms on the assessee in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on this aspect by pointing out that the correctness of the Judgment of this court in the case of RANKA & RANKA [supra] is subject matter of appeals before the Supreme Court; that the appeals when filed were very much maintainable in law; that it was only circular under Instruction No.2/2005 though issued under section 119-A of the Act as was the statutory provision under which such circulars were being issued at that time, but in the language of section 268-A[5] of the Act, that circular also being deemed to be one issued under section 268-A of the Act and that having indicated that while the limit of the value of the appeals being Rs.4 lakhs and less which were not to be preferred by the revenue, but above Rs.4 lakhs for all the years put ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als on the ground that the tax effect being within the monetary limit would come in the way of the Department proceeding against the assessee. The circular also makes it clear that in the pending appeals, where constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act or rule are under challenge, or where Board's order, notification, instruction or circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires or where Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, notwithstanding the fact that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed under the aforesaid circular, still it is open to the Department to request the Court to permit them to prosecute such appeals. Thus, the Department has to apply its mind in all the pendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as to whether the method of valuation of stocks and as contended by the assessee can be the proper way, as the assessee has adopted the method of valuing some part of its stock on market value and some part of its stock on cost of a production which in our opinion is not a choice given to the assessee, but the choice being to value the stock as a whole, either on market value basis or at the cost of production and the other question as to the quantification of the profits eligible for benefit under section 80HHC of the Act, the question is said to be covered by this court, as on the question of maintainability as urged by Sri. Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee, we find that taken year wise the tax effect for each of the year itsel....