CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.

Ankur Goel, Karnal vs. JCIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Ankur Goel, Jcit, Range Karnal, 2201/13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Vs. Karnal.

…se of timber which vary from quality to quality, therefore, correct position of closing stock cannot be determined. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. reported in 188 ITR 44, he upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.47,77,601/-. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Majestic Auto Ltd. in ITA No.116 of 2004 order dated 22.05.2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that proper maintenance of stock is required to be maintained…

ACIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

…Excise Duty payable by the manufacturer are manufacturing expenses and should go into calculation of production cost and closing stock should include an element of such duties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. V/S British Paints Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (S.C). The position was also reaffirmed by the Board. The Assessing Officer held that due to non inclusion of ED in the closing stock of alcohol, assessee company suppressed its gross profit which is worked out to Rs.5,82,54,040 (i.e 830504 @ Rs. 70.14) and added to the income of the company assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further observed tha…

Suguna Nagesh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

…f the CIT(A). He submitted that the principles of res-judicata do not apply to the income-tax proceedings. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld. He relied on the decisions reported in 32 ITR 466, 155 ITR 121 and 188 ITR 44. 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of agricultural income on the ground that the assessee could…

Bigesto Technoloties Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year : 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bigesto Technologies Ltd., B-11, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi Pan : Aaacb3036E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. 4.1.4 In CIT Vs. British Paints(lndia) Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44(SC),it has been held that the AO has power to substitute correct method in place of wrong method of valuing closing stock adopted by the assessee. Merely because the wrong method was consistently followed, it cannot be accepted. Consistency should be with reference to the correct method. Therefore, the AO was justified in substituting correct meth…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bose Corporation India P. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

…iculars of the scrap sale for the last 5 years. However, the taxpayer did not submit the relevant particulars for the reasons best known to it. The Panel would like to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Limited 188 ITR 44 (SC), which lays down important principles for the valuation of closing stock of goods. The ratio of this decision has been that each year being self contained unit and the tax liability arising with reference to the income of a specific assessment year the argument that the closing stock of one year is only opening stock of the next year, is not…

Red Ice Productions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Red Ice Productions Pvt. Ltd., D- 46, Naraina Vihar, Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aadcr8533M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2017 Order

…o be valued by the assessee in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. 9. Further, in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) the Tribunal after going through the cases of CIT v. British Paints (I) Ltd (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) and ITO Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. (1992) 43 ITD 396 (Delhi-Trib.), identified the costs relatable to the finished goods for 7 AY: 2009-10 valuation at year end. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under: “8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the decision rendered in the case of British Pa…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER National Housing Bank, Addl CIT, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl CIT, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl CIT, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl CIT, Core-5A, India Habitat Cent…

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

…Excise Duty payable by the manufacturer are manufacturing expenses and should go into calculation of production cost and closing stock should include an element of such duties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. V/S British Paints Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (S.C). The position was also reaffirmed by the Board. The Assessing Officer held that due to non inclusion of ED in the closing stock of alcohol, assessee company suppressed its gross profit which is worked out to Rs.5,82,54,040 (i.e 830504 @ Rs. 70.14) and added to the income of the company assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further observed tha…

DCIT Circle I vs. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

…Excise Duty payable by the manufacturer are manufacturing expenses and should go into calculation of production cost and closing stock should include an element of such duties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. V/S British Paints Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (S.C). The position was also reaffirmed by the Board. The Assessing Officer held that due to non inclusion of ED in the closing stock of alcohol, assessee company suppressed its gross profit which is worked out to Rs.5,82,54,040 (i.e 830504 @ Rs. 70.14) and added to the income of the company assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer further observed tha…

Smec International Pty. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2007) 158 taxmann 71 (SC) . The learned CIT(DR) also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44, wherein the application of section 145 of the Act was upheld, if the correct income of the assessee was not deductible. 3.3.3 In view of the submissions, learned CIT(DR) prayed for upholding the finding of the DRP on the issue in dispute. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In the…