MAHINDRA SONA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2)(OSD), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that adjustments made to the valuation of closing stock under Section 145A should also affect the opening stock. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for making necessary adjustments to the opening inventory.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added CENVAT credit and VAT set off to the closing inventory, deviating from the method prescribed under Section 145A. The AO did not allow similar adjustments for the opening inventory.
What were the issues?
Whether adjustments made to closing inventory under Section 145A necessitate similar adjustments to opening inventory.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM
O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-2010.
In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) in confirming addition made on account of CENVAT Credit and VAT Set off to the tune of Rs.2,36,71,295/- to the closing inventory.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the course of assessment the AO increased the profits by adding CENVAT credit and VAT set off to the tune of Rs.2,36,71,295/- to the closing inventory on the contention that there is a deviation from the method of valuation prescribed u/s.145A. However, the AO did not allow similar 2 adjustments to CENVAT credit card and VAT set off of Rs.3,82,53,243/- to the value of opening inventory.
By the impugned order the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO without directing the AO to give similar credit in respect of opening inventory. Against this order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Ld. AR invited our attention to the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07, wherein CIT(A) has restored the matter back to the file of AO for giving due adjustment of CENVAT credit in the value of opening stock.
Similar issue has been decided by coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd., ITA No.505/Mum/2004, order dated 11-8-2008 [2008-(ID2)-GJX-0272-TBOM], wherein the Tribunal held as under :- On consideration of section 145A, above Memorandum and CBDT circular explaining the provisions section 145A and above Judgment of the Delhi High court we noted that when the adjustments are made in the valuation of inventories, this will affect both the opening as well as closing stock. Whatever adjustment is made in the valuation of closing stock, the same will be reflected in the opening stock also irrespective of any consequences on the computation of income for tax purposes. We further noticed that Section 145A starts with the non-obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145". Therefore, to give effect to section 145A, the opening stock as on 1.4.98 will have to be increased by any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred with reference to such stock if the same has not been added for the purpose of valuation in the accounts. The AO is directed to give the effect of section 145A as per above discussion.
Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s The Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd., 2009-(IT1)-GJX-0104- Bom, vide order dated 1-4-2009.
More judgments on Section 145A
- M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITA 654/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITA 1931/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Osmanabad vs ITO Ward 1, LaturITA 2882/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Jasviri Devi, Uttar Pradesh vs ITO Ward 2 (1), MoradabadITA 5108/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Sandeep, Sonipat vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, SonipatITA 2392/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026