2016 (8) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w in holding that the unpaid sales tax liability of Rs. 8,44,27,279/would not be hit by the provisions of Section 43B? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the claim for deduction of Rs. 877.38 lakhs in respect of excise duty included in the closing inventory was not admissible in computing the total income? (iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the acceptance of the claim for deduction of excise duty included in the closing inventory would result in double deduction is supported by any evidence and justified in law?" Question no.(i) is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent had valued the closing stock at cost price. Therefore excise duty paid is also a part of the cost of its stock in trade. Thus, disallowed the claim of the respondent-assessee for deduction under Section 43B of the Act. (c) We find that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Lakhanpal National Ltd. (supra) arose on identical facts and the excise duty in fact paid was allowed as a deduction under Section 43B of the Act even when the same had been included in the cost of the closing stock. This decision was subject to consideration by the Apex Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 266 ITR 99 and approved. Similarly, this Court in CIT v/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 252 ITR 43 had occasion to ....