CIT v. Dynavision Ltd.

348 ITR 380Supreme Court of India2012#3962 most cited

What is CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. authority for?

The valuation of unsold stock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary part of determining trading results and does not constitute a source of profit. Its purpose is to balance the cost of goods purchased against the closing inventory to reflect actual realized profit or loss from trading.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. · unsold stock valuation · trading results · source of profit · closing inventory · accounting period · realized profit · tax law · section 44AB · section 31

Also reported as

26 Taxmann.com 40210 Taxmann 239

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 153ASection 292CSection 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)section 31tangible materialunexplained expendituresection 69csection 132(4)section 131unexplained cash creditsalaryscrutiny assessmentincriminating materialsection 153

Judgments citing CIT v. Dynavision Ltd.

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

…a distorted figure. In this respect, I keep reliance on 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…

ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Senco Gold Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, JM] I.T.A. No. 2194/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata.............................………………………………………Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 6th Floor Kolkata – 700069. M/s. Senco Gold Impex Pvt Ltd.………………………………………………......Respondent 7 & 8, C.I.T. Road Kolkata - 700014 [PAN: AABCV1202B] Appearances by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Sharad Mohata, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : September 04, 2017 Dat…

The DCIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Voltamp Transformers Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 2544/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Shah, C.A
Section 115JSection 145ASection 14ASection 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘सी’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एन.के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2544/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Voltamp Transformers बनाम/ Income Tax(OSD) Ltd. Vs. Circle – 8, 312 Sanman II, OPP Ahmedabad - 380015 Reliance Petrol Pump, Prahladnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACV 5048 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""य…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT RG 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…ाइवेट सरसभटेि Syngenta India Ltd IT(TP)A 1373/Mum/2014 ITA 1926/Mum/2014 ITA 560/Mum/2015 ITA 147/Mum/2016 Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (318 ITR 116) and on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (348 ITR 380). The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below and placed reliance on the finding given in the respective orders. 2.3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition on account of duty to the closing stock value. Under the provisions of section 145A, the valuation…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…ाइवेट सरसभटेि Syngenta India Ltd IT(TP)A 1373/Mum/2014 ITA 1926/Mum/2014 ITA 560/Mum/2015 ITA 147/Mum/2016 Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (318 ITR 116) and on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (348 ITR 380). The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below and placed reliance on the finding given in the respective orders. 2.3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition on account of duty to the closing stock value. Under the provisions of section 145A, the valuation…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Syngenta India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…ाइवेट सरसभटेि Syngenta India Ltd IT(TP)A 1373/Mum/2014 ITA 1926/Mum/2014 ITA 560/Mum/2015 ITA 147/Mum/2016 Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (318 ITR 116) and on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (348 ITR 380). The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below and placed reliance on the finding given in the respective orders. 2.3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition on account of duty to the closing stock value. Under the provisions of section 145A, the valuation…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…would not result in any addition to the total income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (318 ITR 116) and on the judgment of Hon7ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (348 ITR 380). The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below 48 "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Syngenta India Ltd ITA 8534/Mum/2011 ITA 649/Mum/2013 and placed reliance on the finding given in the respective orders. 2.3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition on account…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…would not result in any addition to the total income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd (318 ITR 116) and on the judgment of Hon7ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. (348 ITR 380). The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below 48 "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Syngenta India Ltd ITA 8534/Mum/2011 ITA 649/Mum/2013 and placed reliance on the finding given in the respective orders. 2.3.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition on account…

Sunshield Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sunshield Chemicals Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer- Ltd., 7(2)(3), Mumbai v. C/o, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building,148, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN :AABCG3365J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala & Ms Aarti Sathe Revenue by : Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearin…

Commissioner of Income Tax(C)-III vs. Svp Industries Ltd

ITA/495/2013HC Delhi03 Sept 2014
Section 3

…ITA No. 495/2013 Page 1 of 10 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 03, 2014 + ITA 495/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C)-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr.N.P.Sahni, Sr.Standing Counsel Versus SVP INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.M.P.Rastogi, Mr.K.N.Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) 1. By order dated 28.04.2014, the following substantial question of law was framed in this appeal,…