CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.

318 ITR 116High Court2009#1761 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. authority for?

When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works · 318 ITR 116 · section 145A · valuation of stock · closing stock adjustment · opening stock adjustment · CENVAT credit · Modvat credit · stock valuation income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 2(7A)Section 253

Issues it is cited on

section 145asection 80hinterest on refundsection 115jasection 35dsection 80hhcsection 80hhsection 80ibinterest on securitiessection 244adeduction u/s 80iabusiness connection

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

…clude the closing MODVAT in the figure of the „closing stock‟ without modifying the figures of purchase, sale and opening stock. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT VS. Mahalaxmi Glass Work (P) Ld. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 77 (Del), as well as the order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e ITAT, Mumbai bench “D” in R.R. Kable Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-7(2), Mumbai (2012) 25 taxman.com 559 (Mum). 12. We find that it is the claim of the ld. A.R that irrespective of whethe…

Triton Valves Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1629/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 Triton Valves Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.22, Sunrise Chambers, Income Tax, Ulsoor Road, Circle 12(4), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. PAN: AAACT 6671P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member This appeal is filed…

Essel Propack Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Essel Propack Ltd. Top Asst. Commissioner Of Floor, Times Tower, Vs. Income Tax, Range- Kamala City, Senapati 6(2)(2), Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakarbhavan Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace1568L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. D.W. Pansari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.W. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…e value of closing stock and accordingly increased the profits for the year under consideration. The ITAT has set aside the issue to the file of the AO holding that the issue stands covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 116. The AO has noted that vide the said decision, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that once the value of closing stock is increased by making adjustment u/s 145A, correspondingly the value of opening stock should also be given credit for the same. The AO noted that inspite of being asked to furnish the details/breakup of opening and closing stoc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4635/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4634/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4633/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4632/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4631/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Meroform India Pvt Ltd., Noida

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4630/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

M/S. Meroform (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4494/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan CAFor Respondent: Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 40A

…, acknowledged, confirmed liability and accepting cost of such purchases included in stocks. (g) The additions are contrary to settled position in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maha veer Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77 , wherein, it has been held that if there is change in valuation of closing stock in one end, it must necessarily be a corresponding change at the other end, otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. Hon'ble Delhi High Court…

Asst CIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1776/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 40A

…denovo adjudication in the light of the provisions of section 145A. The Assessing Officer is also directed to give corresponding benefit in the opening stock in view of the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and the judgement of Delhi High Court in Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 077 (Del). Thus, ground no.2, is allowed for statistical purposes." Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we restore this issue back to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide this issue afresh in the light CO No.242/M/2017 M/s. Johnson…

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

…vt. 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 assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. DR, if kept in juxtaposition and analy…

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

Appeal are allowed

ITA 7307/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7307/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Suman KumarFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7307/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Koch Chemical DCIT 14(2)(1) Technology Group R. No. 432, Aayakar India Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. k. Road, बिधम/ 10th Floor, Coporative Mumbai-400020 Vs. Park II sion Trambey Rd, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCK3688G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26/02/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 28/0…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…gly.” 2.3 Before us, the Ld. counsels of the assessee submit that the same is profit neutral. There is no impact on profit. Reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (297 ITR 77) (Del.), CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Work (P) Ltd. (318 ITR 116) (Bom.) and Bayer Crop Science Ltd. (62 SOT 109) (ITAT- Mumbai). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As the provisions of section 145A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.1999 that section 145A is applicable for and from Larse…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…f the assessee submits that the appellant follows exclusive method of accounting for MODVAT. Reliance is placed by her on the decision in Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. 261 ITR 275 (SC), Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. 297 ITR 77 (Del), Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. 318 ITR 116 (Bom) and DCIT v. Hitech Plast Containers (I) Ltd. 2009 31 SOT 112 (Mum). The Ld. counsel further drew our attention to a recent decision dated 07.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s Diamond Dye Chem Ltd. (ITA No. 146 of 2015). 6.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6.5 We have heard the…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Dhar

In the result, Both the Appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1539/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…will not change their profit, may also be taken into consideration. For arriving at this decision reliance is placed on the decisions on same issue in the cases of M/s Mahavir Aluminum Ltd. (2008) 214 CTR(Del.) 45, M/s. Mahalaxmi Glass works Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom), Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 78 and Rajratan Gustav Wolf Ltd. (ITA No.768/In/2006) I.T.A.T., Indore. As a result this ground of appeal is allowed in principle for statistical purposes.” The decision of the CIT(A) on the issue has been upheld by the I.T.A.T. Indore in its order in Appeal Nos. TPA No.615/Ind/2010 (A.Y.…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Dhar

In the result, Both the Appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1311/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…will not change their profit, may also be taken into consideration. For arriving at this decision reliance is placed on the decisions on same issue in the cases of M/s Mahavir Aluminum Ltd. (2008) 214 CTR(Del.) 45, M/s. Mahalaxmi Glass works Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom), Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 78 and Rajratan Gustav Wolf Ltd. (ITA No.768/In/2006) I.T.A.T., Indore. As a result this ground of appeal is allowed in principle for statistical purposes.” The decision of the CIT(A) on the issue has been upheld by the I.T.A.T. Indore in its order in Appeal Nos. TPA No.615/Ind/2010 (A.Y.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1542/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

…r 2009-10 may be allowed to be enhanced by Rs.44,06,176/-. The ld. AR in support of his alternate submission placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. reported as 318 ITR 116. 20. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and prayed for rejecting the appeal of assessee. 21. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides on this issue. The contention of the ld. AR of assessee is that the assessee has in fact reduced the value of obsolet…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1541/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

…r 2009-10 may be allowed to be enhanced by Rs.44,06,176/-. The ld. AR in support of his alternate submission placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. reported as 318 ITR 116. 20. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and prayed for rejecting the appeal of assessee. 21. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides on this issue. The contention of the ld. AR of assessee is that the assessee has in fact reduced the value of obsolet…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1540/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayant G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234C

…r 2009-10 may be allowed to be enhanced by Rs.44,06,176/-. The ld. AR in support of his alternate submission placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. reported as 318 ITR 116. 20. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and prayed for rejecting the appeal of assessee. 21. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides on this issue. The contention of the ld. AR of assessee is that the assessee has in fact reduced the value of obsolet…