Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT

24 ITR 481Supreme Court of India1953#475 most cited

What is Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT authority for?

Income accrues and becomes taxable only when there is a reasonable certainty of its realization. A mere possibility or expectation of income, particularly when subject to ongoing disputes, is not enough for it to be considered accrued.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT · 24 ITR 481 · income accrual · reasonable certainty · taxable income · notional income · mercantile system of accounting · Section 145 · Section 143(3) · ongoing litigation · income recognition

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 154Section 69Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

mercantile system of accountingadvance taxcommercial expediencysection 145revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)scrutiny assessmentsection 28section 36previous yearsection 10

Judgments citing Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Ashok Bhansali, Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2458/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2458/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vishal Ashok Bhansali C-112, Grand Paradi Income Tax-19(3) बनाम/ A.K.Marg, Kemps Corner Room No.206, 2Nd Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 036 Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeipb-9981-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Written Submissions dated 01/08/2018For Respondent: Rajeev Gubangotra, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed- The appellant has adopted the same method of valuation in the year under consideration as has been adapted in the preceding year Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT 24 ITR 481 and in the case of Kika Bhai Prern Chand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506 has held that if any accounting principle is recognized and has been accepted then the stock valued according to that method is to be accepted- Option to adopt any system of accounting clearly lies with the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of investment Ltd. vs. CIT 77 ITR 533…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…at there is no direction in the impugned order to value the opening stock also by adopting the same method which was suggested in the valuation of closing stock. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) has held as under: “It is a misconception to think that any profit "arises out of the valuation of the closing stock" and the situs of its arising or accrual is where the valuation is made. Valuation of unsold stock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period, and…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ts own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have a joint or common interest." Our attention has been invited to CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC). In that case, the assessee entered into a partnership and as its share of the capital, it transferred its stock of machinery to the partnership firm. This court held that when the assessee made over its machinery to the partnership firm, there was no sale and the assessee did not derive any income. In CIT v. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib [1969…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ts own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have a joint or common interest." Our attention has been invited to CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC). In that case, the assessee entered into a partnership and as its share of the capital, it transferred its stock of machinery to the partnership firm. This court held that when the assessee made over its machinery to the partnership firm, there was no sale and the assessee did not derive any income. In CIT v. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib [1969…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ts own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is meant is property or assets in which all partners have a joint or common interest." Our attention has been invited to CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC). In that case, the assessee entered into a partnership and as its share of the capital, it transferred its stock of machinery to the partnership firm. This court held that when the assessee made over its machinery to the partnership firm, there was no sale and the assessee did not derive any income. In CIT v. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib [1969…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ecl Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5405/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

…t or market price whichever is the lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy". This is what the Supreme Court held in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), speaking through Hon'ble Justice Patanjali Sastri, the then Chief Justice of India (page 485 -- 486 of the Report). At page 486 the Supreme Court further observed that "loss due to a fall in price below cost is allowed even if such loss has not been actually realized". Quoting from the case of Whimster & Co. vs. Commissioners of Inland Reven…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edel Commodities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1643/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(2), Edel Commodities Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Express Tower, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacce0323K

For Appellant: Shri DG Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR
Section 143(3)

…made out by the Revenue that the valuation done is not correct or not properly explained. In these situations, the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon hereinabove in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), is quite germane. Furthermore, we find the Assessing Officer has totally erred in placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (in Civil Appeal No. 6735- 6736/2003 vide order dated 24.11.2005). In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has analyzed the…

M/S the Keshab Jewellers, Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S The Keshab Jewellers -Vs- Jcit, Range-50, Kolkata [Pan: Aabft 5144 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kr. Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…rary findings by the Assessing Officer, there is no merit in not adopting the method of valuation of stock being consistently followed by the assessee. Further we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampat Ram v. CIT 24 ITR 481 (SC) (supra) wherein it has been held that the value of stock cannot be appreciated higher than the cost because the closing stock is not the source of profit for the assessee. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the closing stock is to be valued either at cost or market value, whichever is low. In the facts and circumstances o…

ITO, WD-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 570/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

…emained with the assessee at the closing of the accounting year. Secondly, putting the stock at the market value does not and cannot bring in any real profit which is necessary for taxing the income under the Act as is held in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd [1972 ] 83 ITR 211 (SC). Thirdly, it is a settled principle of income-tax law that it is the real income, which is taxable under the Act. This proposition was enunciated in CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC), which was pronounced in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and CO. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC)."…

ITO, WD-46(1), Kolkata vs. Provash Adhikari, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1101/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Sallon Yaden, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: none appeared
Section 143(3)

…clearly held that the valuation of stock in trade whether at cost or market price, which is a matter entirely within the discretion of the assessee ­ C I T Vs. British Paints Ltd (188 ITR 44). Similarly, the Apex Court has held in Chainrup Sampatram Vs. CIT (24 ITR 481) that while valuing the closing stock, it is only the anticipated loss that is required to be taken into account, while the anticipated profit in the shape of appreciated value of stock is not required to be brought into account till its actual realization. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an exceptional situation only where the a…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Lotus Construction, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4659/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 32(2) Lotus Construction Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B-1, Neela Apartment बनाम/ Room No.308, C-10, 3Rd Floor Mandapeshwar Road, Borivali (W) Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacfl-5653-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…the AO. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of different in closing stock of Rs.23,93,082/- by placing reliance on decision in the case of Chainrup Sampatram Vs. CIT (1953) (24 ITR 481) without appreciating the fact that assessee’s nature of business is entirely different from the case law referred. 4. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of sales promotion expenses of Rs.5,98,650/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit documents i…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S Mittal Corp. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

ITA 660/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…following judicial pronouncements : 1. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Limited 2012 – TIOl -88- S.C. 3. CIT vs. Dynavision Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 380 (S.C.) 4. Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (S.C.) 5.M/s Rajratan Globe Wire Ltd. vs. ACIT;ITA No.768/Ind/2006 6.ACIT vs. M/s Tesla Transformers 2010 15 ITJ 877 (Tribunal) Indore 7. ACIT vs. D&H Secheron Electrodes (P) Ltd. 173 Taman 188 4.6 In the aforestated facts of the appellant’s case, I have considered the A.O.’s order as well as the appellant’s submission. Having considered both, I…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Mittal Corporation Ltd., Pithampur

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

ITA 480/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…following judicial pronouncements : 1. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Limited 2012 – TIOl -88- S.C. 3. CIT vs. Dynavision Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 380 (S.C.) 4. Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (S.C.) 5.M/s Rajratan Globe Wire Ltd. vs. ACIT;ITA No.768/Ind/2006 6.ACIT vs. M/s Tesla Transformers 2010 15 ITJ 877 (Tribunal) Indore 7. ACIT vs. D&H Secheron Electrodes (P) Ltd. 173 Taman 188 4.6 In the aforestated facts of the appellant’s case, I have considered the A.O.’s order as well as the appellant’s submission. Having considered both, I…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Koch Chemical Technology Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit-14(2)(1), M/S Koch Chemical Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technology Group India Pvt. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, 10Th Floor, Corporate Park-Ii Mumbai-400020 Sion Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai-400071 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabck3688G

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145A

…ing stock and computed the income accordingly. 4 Koch Chemical Technology 2.1. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the CBDT Circular, relied upon by the Ld. Assessing Officer along with the decision like Chainrup Sampatram vs CIT (24 ITR 481)(Supreme Court), Mahavir Aluminum Pvt. Ltd. (297 ITR 77)(Del.), Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.505/Mum/2014) and CBDT Circular No. 772 dated 23/12/1998 were considered along with the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom.) and granted relief to the assesse…

Lakshmi Steel Rolling Mills (Unit-II), Bhavnagar vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-2, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2590/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…urchase, the income in respect of the same cannot be booked at a point of time earlier than actual sale of stock, as is the mandate of principle of conservatism in accountancy duly recognized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (24 ITR 481). In view of these discussions, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee, and, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs.51,55,133/-. 10. Ground no.3 is thus allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today o…

Amar Jewellers, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5631/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amar Jewellers Acit, Circle-2 1, Zenda Naka, Bazar Peth, Vs. Kalyan. Murbad, Dist. Thane-421402 Pan No. Aaofa7485M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…to value the closing stock either at cost price or market price, whichever is lower and (2) that the value of closing stock must be the value of opening stock in the succeeding year. The above two principles are enunciated in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT, (1953) 24 ITR 481, 486 (SC); CIT v. British Paints India Ltd., (1991) 188 ITR 44, 51 (SC). The theory that underlines the accepted Shri Amar Jewellers 5 principle, that the closing stock could be valued at the option of the assessee at cost or market value, whichever was lower, was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampatram (supra). Their Lordshi…

ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Roopshree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ary findings by the Assessing Officer, there is no merit in not adopting the method of valuation of stock being consistently followed by the assessee. Further we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampat Ram Vs. CIT 24 ITR 481 (SC) (supra) wherein it has been held that the value of stock cannot be appreciated higher than the cost because the closing stock is not the source of profit for the assessee. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the closing stock is to be valued either at cost or market value, whichever is low. In the facts and circumstances o…

M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ary findings by the Assessing Officer, there is no merit in not adopting the method of valuation of stock being consistently followed by the assessee. Further we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampat Ram Vs. CIT 24 ITR 481 (SC) (supra) wherein it has been held that the value of stock cannot be appreciated higher than the cost because the closing stock is not the source of profit for the assessee. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the closing stock is to be valued either at cost or market value, whichever is low. In the facts and circumstances o…

Edil Commodities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3426/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3426/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Edel Commodities Limited Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Mumbai Vs. Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai-400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacce 0323 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3576/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit – 3(1)(2), M/S. Edel Commodities Limited बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai-400 098 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacce 0323 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 15.2.2016 & Pertain To The Assessment Year 2011-12. M/S. Edel Commodities Limited Assessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 44ASection 72

…t or market price whichever is the lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy". This is what the Supreme Court held in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), speaking through Hon'ble Justice Patanjali Sastri, the then Chief Justice of India (page 485 — 486 of the Report). At page 486 the Supreme Court further observed that "loss due to a fall in price below cost is allowed even if such loss has not been actually realized". Quoting from the case of Whimster & Co. vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenu…

ITO, WD-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 982/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 982/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 7452 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 982/Kol/2016) Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Abhinand Investment Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 7452 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri V.N. Purohit, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145A

…k up value in respect of unquoted shares. The assessee further placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of i) CIT vs. British Paints India Limited reported in [1991]88 ITR 44 (S C) ii) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT reported in [1953] 24 ITR 481 (S C) The assessee pleaded that there is absolutely no deviation from the regular method of accounting followed by it over the years with regard to valuation of closing stock of unquoted shares which was in accordance with universally applicable accounting principles and methods. It was further pleaded that the law does not differentiate between t…