A.L.A. Firm v. CIT

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period, and can in no sense be regarded as the "source" of such profits.” 64. The Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) (189 ITR 285) (SC) has observed that closing stock cannot be valued at a market value higher than the cost as that will result in taxation of 32 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India the notional profits which the assessee has not realised. The relevant extract of the judgement of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: “The valuati…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () A.C.I.T-3(2)(2) National Bank For Agriculture & R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, Vs. Rural Development, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai -400 020 Complex,Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan No. Aaact4020G (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

…A No.4277/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 2 ACIT 3(2)(2)Vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development V.CIT (1976) 102 ITR (SC), which was subsequently confirmed in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT(1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and A.L.A. Firm v. CIT(1991) 189 ITR 285 (C). ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee in Ground no.2 to 4 of their appeal on merit and therefore it is humbly prayed that the Id.CIT(A) may be directed to decided the issues contained in ground no.2 to 4 on merit. 5. The appellant prays that the order…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…stock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period, and can in no sense be regarded as the "source" of such profits.” 64. The Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) (189 ITR 285) (SC) has observed that closing stock cannot be valued at a market value higher than the cost as that will result in taxation of the notional profits which the assessee has not realised. The relevant extract of the judgement of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: “The valuation of the closing stock at market value invariably will create a prob…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jnj Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () & Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Jnj Holdings Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd,Raval Building No.1, Circle 5(2)(1), R. No. 525, 2Nd Floor, 428, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhadkamkar Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacj2047D (Revenue) (Assessee)

…luation of Closing stock consistently and the same has been accepted by the department itself. We have further noted that this method of valuation has been approved by the Supreme Court in various cases mentioned above and in the case of Sakthi Trading Co. in 250 ITR 871. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances we have no hesitation confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). AY 2003-04 : 7. We have considered the submissions made by both parties, material on record and orders of authorities below. We find that in the similar facts, the Tribunal in assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jnj Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () & Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Jnj Holdings Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd,Raval Building No.1, Circle 5(2)(1), R. No. 525, 2Nd Floor, 428, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhadkamkar Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No.Aaacj2047D (Revenue) (Assessee)

…luation of Closing stock consistently and the same has been accepted by the department itself. We have further noted that this method of valuation has been approved by the Supreme Court in various cases mentioned above and in the case of Sakthi Trading Co. in 250 ITR 871. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances we have no hesitation confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). AY 2003-04 : 7. We have considered the submissions made by both parties, material on record and orders of authorities below. We find that in the similar facts, the Tribunal in assessee…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

…year: 2011-12 Page 32 of 41 The above observations apply with full force to the facts of the present case and also go to show as to how the judgment in Burlop Dealers Ltd. 's case (supra) is required to be understood. 19. Again, in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285, a three Judges Bench of this Court, to which one of us (S.C. Agrawal, J.) was a party, after an elaborate discussion of the subject opined that the jurisdiction of the ITO to reassess income arises if he has in consequence of specific and relevant information coming into his possession subsequent to the previous concluded assessment, reason to b…

ACIT-21(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Santosh Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Santosh Enterprises Income Tax-21(3) 1, Manshanti Chs Ltd., Room No.209, 2Nd Floor D.L.Vaidya Road Piramal Chambers Dadar (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 12 Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaafs1100K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…ng advance received by the assessee as compensation towards absolute transfer of the business asset in the nature of Development Rights ignoring the ratio of judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (Supreme Court) (1991) 189 ITR 285.” 5. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or to alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3 M/s. Santosh Enterprises 2. The only one common issue raised in all the grounds of appeal by the reve…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculature and Rural Developement, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4278/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4279/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Central Circle 3(2)(2) National Bank For Rural Agriculture & बिाम Mumbai Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex / Vs. Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No.Aaact-4020-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry – Ld. Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri Narendra Jangpangi – Ld. Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds. However, It Is Admitted Position That Issues Are Identical In Both The Years & Adjudication In Any One Year Shall Equally Apply To Other Year Also. 2. The Appeal For Ay 2008-09 Arises Out Of Order Dated

…in law without following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR (SC), which was subsequently confirmed in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)? 4. On the facts and circumstances and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee in Ground no. 2 to 3 of their appeal on merit and therefore it is humbly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decided the issues contained in ground no. 2 to 3 on merit? 5. The appeal prays that the order of CIT(A…

Krishna Ramesh Sharma, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent.Cir.-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4915/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 ) Mrs. Krishna Ramesh बिधम/ Dcit-Central Circle 2(1) Sharma Mumba, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Flat No. 1101, Sadguru Pratistha Bhawan, M. K. Kalyan Building, Junction Of Road, Mumbai-400020. 13Th & 17 Road, Khar, Mumbai400052. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4916/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Mr. Ramesh H. Sharma Dcit-Central Circle 2(1) Flat No. 1101, Sadguru Mumba, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Kalyan Building, Junction Of Pratistha Bhawan, M. K. 13Th & 17 Road, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaops5770R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant Pai Revenue By: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. Ita. No.4916/Mum/2018

…Since the assessee was not failure to for the disclosure of all the material facts necessary for assessment, therefore, the reopening is also bad in view of the decision in the case of (i) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO 203 ITR 456, 477 (ii) ALA Firm Vs. CIT 189 ITR 285, 298 (iii) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT 119 ITR 996, 1004 & ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437, 445. On appraisal of the above said finding, it is apparent that the assessment could only be reopened on account of disclosure of new matter of knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of original assessment. It…

Alliance Mall Developers Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…2-43/Mum/2018 Alliance Mall Developers Co. Private Limited Assessment Years :2013-14 & 14-15 (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC); (2) Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC); and (3) A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). 11. We may recapitulate the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) : “ A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade either at cost or at market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

…tock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period, and can in no sense be regarded as the "source" of such profits.” 64. The Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) (189 ITR 285) (SC) has observed that closing stock cannot be valued at a market value higher than the cost as that will result in taxation of the notional profits which the assessee has not realised. The relevant extract of the judgement of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: “The valuation of the closing stock at market value invariably will create a pro…