CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

291 ITR 391Supreme Court of India2007#4497 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. authority for?

An assessee must consistently follow one method of accounting. Allowing a method that contravenes Section 145 of the Income Tax Act or its rules is unjustified.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. · Section 145 · method of accounting · consistent accounting · contravention of law · accounting standards · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 145A Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 23a retention money section 145(1)section 211 section 115baa section 28(iv)section 145(2)project completion method ppt section 43c section 35d percentage completion method

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs Commissioner of income Tax (2005) 149 Taxman 431 (SC)/2005 279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method of accounting to the assessee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules. 6. Whether CIT(A) was jus…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs Commissioner of income Tax (2005) 149 Taxman 431 (SC)/2005 279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method of accounting to the assessee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules. 6. Whether CIT(A) was jus…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs Commissioner of income Tax (2005) 149 Taxman 431 (SC)/2005 279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method of accounting to the assessee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules. 6. Whether CIT(A) was jus…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs Commissioner of income Tax (2005) 149 Taxman 431 (SC)/2005 279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method of accounting to the assessee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules. 6. Whether CIT(A) was jus…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ion to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Sanjeev Woollen Mills vs Commissioner of income Tax (2005) 149 Taxman 431 (SC)/2005 279 ITR 434 (SC)/(2005) 199 CTR 441(SC))24- 11- 2005) & CIT, Udaipur vs Hindustan Zine Ltd (2007) 161 Taxman 162 (SC)/(2007) 291 ITR 391 (SC)/(2007) 210 CTR 282 (SC)(18-05-2007) that assessee has to follow consistently one method of accounting. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 5. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing a method of accounting to the assessee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules. 6. Whether CIT(A) was jus…

MR. ALTAF H. ATTARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4332/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. D.R

Section 145ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Altaf H. Attari, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.6, East And West Court, WD – 17(1)(1), 103 Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400001 G Block, BKC, PAN: AAAPA9805B Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.05. 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06. 2024 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. M/S GTM BUILDER AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/180/2021HC Delhi02 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 153ASection 260A

…12. The revenue could not repudiate the quantities tallying with the book stock during the search or even during the assessment proceedings. Reliance is being placed in the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 291 ITR 391. 13. The Assessing Officer also acknowledges that a separate company by the name of M/s GTM Jwellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. has been found from 26.07.2006. 14. The addition made was based on the statement of the Director of that company Shri Gautam Kumar wherein due cognizance was taken of the factum of the separation of jewellery business from…

MRS. KHURSHED H ATTARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17 (2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4945/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Khurshed H. Attari, Ito Ward-17(2)(1), Flat No. 6, East & West Court, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G. Block, Bkc, 103, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapa 9806 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Gurbinder Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/11/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Gurbinder Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…make to individuals who stand to be affected by their orders.” 6.1 Further, he relied in the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Modern Terry Towers Ltd. 357 ITR 750 (Bombay) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme in CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (291 ITR 391) (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We noticed that the assessee is in the business of share trading and she is historically followed the method of valuing the closing stock on actual cost basis and subsequent to the notificatio…

DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M. M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

…olkem India Ltd., reported in 221 CTR 767 (d) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 53 Taxmann.com 232. (e) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., reported in 291 ITR 391. (f) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotline Teletube and Components Ltd., reported in 175 Taxmann.286 (g) Decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.448/PN/2010 (h) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India (P) Ltd., reported in 312 I…

L'OREAL INDIA P.LD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 2635/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner Of A-Wing, 8Th Floor Income Tax-6 Marathon Futurex Aayakar Bhavan N.M. Joshi Marg M.K.Road Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacl0738K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 263

…f cost or net realisation value. It was pleaded by the assessee that the valuation method followed by it was in accordance with provisions of Section 145 of the Act and also the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 391 and British Paints India Ltd., reported in 188 ITR 44. It was pleaded that the concept of market price / net realizable value also envisages reducing the cost of inventories appropriately in cases where they are damaged, or if they have become wholly or partially obsolete, or if their selling prices have declined or they are non-moving. The asses…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 456/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 456/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dcit 3(3)(1) M/S Rallis India Ltd Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar बिधम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhavan, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr2657N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : C.O. No. 117/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2728/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri A. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain /H

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ws AS-2 whereby stores/inventories are valued at cost or market value whichever is lower. This principle has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on numerous occasions, one of them being its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc. Ltd (2007) (291 ITR 391). He also referred to section 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials and stores. In paragraph 6.…

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

…ws AS-2 whereby stores/inventories are valued at cost or market value whichever is lower. This principle has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on numerous occasions, one of them being its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc. Ltd (2007) (291 ITR 391). He also referred to section 5 M/s Rallis India Ltd. ITA NO.3680/Mumbai/2016 CO NO.185/Mumbai/2016 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net r…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…ws AS-2 whereby stores/inventories are valued at cost or market value whichever is lower. This principle has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on numerous occasions, one of them being its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc. Ltd (2007) (291 ITR 391). He also referred to section 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials and stores. In paragraph 6.…

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…ws AS-2 whereby stores/inventories are valued at cost or market value whichever is lower. This principle has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on numerous occasions, one of them being its judgment in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc. Ltd (2007) (291 ITR 391). He also referred to section 145A and stated that as per the principle of stock valuation upheld by the apex court, the method of valuation regularly adopted by the appellant is a recognized method and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. The items written down to the net realizable value are items of raw materials and stores. In paragraph 6.…

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

…r side of the account" 1.7 The Gujarat High Court has followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram Vs CIT 24 ITR 481 and the said principles are reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 291 ITR 391. The principles are reproduced on Page no. 377 in para No. 16 of the Report. The above referred principles that if there is no debit that there is no credit are affirmed by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dynavision Ltd 348 ITR 380. DCIT vs. Voltamp Transformers Ltd. Asst.Year –2011-12 1.8 It may please be noted that the CIT(A) has deleted t…

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…ance, is also placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that the provision made by the assessee towards obsolete and slow moving items was allowable deduction: • CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.: 188 ITR 44 (SC) • CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: 291 ITR 391(SC) • ChainrupSampatram v. CIT: 24 ITR 481 (SC) • Hotline Tele Tube and Components Limited: 175 Taxman 286 (Del. HC) • CIT v. Hughes Communication India Ltd.: 215 Taxman 136 (Del. HC) 55 ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 • CIT v Becton Dickinson India (P.) Ltd.: 214 Taxman 636 (Del. HC) • CIT v Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd.: 107 Taxman…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C)-III vs. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD

ITA/495/2013HC Delhi03 Sept 2014

…count is intended to cancel the charge for the goods bought which have remained unsold which should represent the cost of the goods". (see also: para 8 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Zinc. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 391/161 Taxman 162”. (emphasis supplied) 5. We note that the legislature, by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, has enacted Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in short), with effect from April 01, 1999, which reads as under: “145A. Method of accounting in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/42/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

…ail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2 vld ITA39/2012 & conn. Page 8 of8…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/40/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

…ail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2 vld ITA39/2012 & conn. Page 8 of8…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/43/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

…ail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2 vld ITA39/2012 & conn. Page 8 of8…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (291 ITR 391) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax