How many judgments cite CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (297 ITR 77), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 145A, Section 120(4)(b), Section 124(3), Section 127, Section 145.

CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.

297 ITR 77High Court2008#1962 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. authority for?

When the Assessing Officer revalues the closing stock, the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis to ensure consistency in the method of accounting and proper computation of business income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. · 297 ITR 77 · Section 145 · Section 145A · opening stock revaluation · closing stock revaluation · inventory valuation · consistency in accounting · business income · profits and gains of business

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145A Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127 Section 145 Section 2(7A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 145a section 38 r&d expenditure opening wdv section 80h section 80hhc section 80hh written down value block of assets section 145 section 50 section 92ca(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.

GOPU NANDILATH GOPALAKRISHNAN,THRISSUR vs. ACIT(2)(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopu Nandilath Gopalakrishnan .......... Appellant Guruvayoor Road, Punkunnam, Thrissur 680002 [Pan: Accpg7719G] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 12.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Domestic Appliances. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 03.11.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 2,06,37,450/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…in the contention of the appellant that when the AO revalued the closing stock, he is bound to revalue the opening stock on the same basis. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium [2008] 297 ITR 77, wherein the Hon'ble High Court following the ratio of the Privy Council in the case of CIT vs. Ahmadabad Cotton Mfg. Co. AIR 1930 PC 56, wherein it was observed that it was necessary to make adjustments in opening stock, when closing stock is revalued. 8. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion th…

CHAKOLAS INTERFUN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chakolas Interfurn .......... Appellant Town Hall Road, Thirussur 680020 [Pan: Aabfc5355R] Vs. Acit, Circle – 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri V. Venugopalan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 31,92,225/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Venugopalan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…in the contention of the appellant that when the AO revalued the closing stock, he is bound to revalue the opening stock on the same basis. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium [2008] 297 ITR 77 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following the ratio of the Privy Council in the case of CIT vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. AIR 1930 PC 56, wherein it was observed that it was necessary to make adjustments in opening stock, when closing stock is revalued. 6. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion tha…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PATTO PLAZA vs. ESTEEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT

ITA 253/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Mahendra Sanghvi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 253Section 44A

…sing inventory must only be carried out to align with the method adopted for opening inventory and not vice-versa. For determination of taxable income u/h PGBP both inventories to be treated as like also finds support in ‘CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminium Ltd.’ [2008, 297 ITR 77 (Del)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 17 of 20 DCIT Vs Esteem Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.253/PAN/2024 AY: 2012-13 18. Similarly in ‘Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs CIT’ and ‘CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc’ (supra), the change in the method of valuation were rejected and action of the Revenue in resorting to earlier method of inventory valuation & consequential additio…

ITTIACHEN VAZHAPILLY LONAPPAN,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 457/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ittiachen Vazhapilly Lonappan .......... Appellant Prof., Hotel Merlin International Opp. Thrissur Railway Station Poothole, Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Aawpl5634K] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1) .......... Respondent Thrissur Appellant By: Shri V. Venugopalan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Venugopalan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…in the contention of the appellant that when the AO revalued the closing stock, he is bound to revalue the opening stock on the same basis. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium [2008] 297 ITR 77 wherein the Hon'ble High Court following the ratio of the Privy Council in the case of CIT vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. AIR 1930 PC 56, wherein it was observed that it was necessary to make adjustments in opening stock, when closing stock is revalued. 4 Ittiachen Vazhapilly Lonappan 8. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decision, I a…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…he opening stock is possible as held in the case of Melmould corporation v/s CIT 202 ITR 789. Besides, tax provisions under section 145A came into effect from 1.4.98 AY 2003-04 cant be said to be transitional year. Hence, the judgement of Mahavir Aluminum Ltd 297 ITR 77 shall not apply and hence directed to verify the facts and make the addition as per aforesaid directions Aggrieved, Assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, 75. Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2000-01, AY 2001-02 and AY 2008-09. In view of the above, Ld.AR of the…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

…opening stock is possible by relying on the decision in ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 7 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) case of Melmould Corporation v. CIT (202 ITR 789) and observing that decision of Mahavir Aluminium (297 ITR 77) shall not apply. 3. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that he has no powers to set aside the issue to the AO for verification instead he should have deleted the disallowance on the basis of submissions made by the Appellant. Further, irrespective of whether the Appellant follows gross or net method of valuation of stock, the amount…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…y was enhanced to that extent. 18. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The issue raised in ground No.3 is no longer resintegra and has been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd., 297 ITR 77, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that whenever adjustment on account of Modvat credit is made corresponding adjustment is also to be made to opening stock. The aforesaid view has also been accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works. 318 ITR 116 (Bom). The issue is therefore remanded to the AO to consid…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S EPL LTD, MUMABI

ITA 2646/MUM/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2646/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Epl Ltd., Top Floor Times Tower, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaace-1568-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. 264 ITR 503. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 116 following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahavir Alluminimum Limited 297 ITR 77 held that to give effect to section 145A if there is a change in the closing stock at the end of the year, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in the opening stock of that year. This does not 5 ITA NO. 2646/MUM/2022(A.Y.2007-08 amount to giving total benefit to the assessee. It would be necessary to compute the true and cor…

ABBOTT INDIA LTD (AS SUCCESSOR TO SOLVAY PHARMA INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…the value of stock of earlier year should be taken as opening stock-This also forfeits assessee's plea." 15 ABOTT INDIA LIMITED 9. The Hon'ble High Court has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. 297 ITR 77. A similar decision was taken by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Rm Ratn Wires Ltd. in ITA Nos.2180/M/2012 and 8503/M/2011 wherein the Tribunal has followed another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of R.R. Kabel Ltd 66 DTR (Trib)(Mum). The relevant part of the decision read as under We find that in the case of the sister conc…

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

…of the assessee that the effect of Modvat, duty, tax, cess, etc by way of its inclusion should be done in the opening stock also. Our view is further verified by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminimum Ltd reported in 297 ITR 77 (Del) wherein it was categorically held that while giving effect to section 145A of the Act, if there is a change in closing stock, corresponding adjustement must be made in the opening stock also. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt Ltd reported in 318 ITR 116 (Bom). We…

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…of altering the valuation of closing stock alone by the AO without a corresponding change at the other end i.e. in the in CIT vs. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1930 PC 56. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd., 297 ITR 77 (Delhi) following the ratio laid down in the Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) held that where the Assessing Officer alters the valuation of the closing stock, is bound to alter the valuation of opening stock on the same basis in order to avoid distortion of the taxable income for the year under consideration. The action of the AO in the…

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1323/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

SOLVAY PHARMA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2671/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 115Section 145ASection 14A

…the assesse's plea that the value of stock of earlier year should be taken as opening stock- This also forfeits assessee's plea." 9. The Hon'ble High Court has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminium Ltd, 297 ITR 77. A similar decision was taken by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Rm Ratn Wires Ltd. in ITA Nos.2180/M/2012 and 8503/M/2011 wherein the Tribunal has followed another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of R.R, Kabel Ltd 66 DTR (Trib)(Mum), The relevant part of the decision read as under: We find that in the case of the sister con…

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…effect has to be given to value of opening stock as well and as such action of assessing officer is only enhancing value of closing stock is mechanical and against principle laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (2008)297 ITR 77 (Del) in which it was held as under: “We are of opinion that in present case, there is no question of any double benefit being given to assessee. Paragraph 23.13 of guidance note itself makes it clear that whenever any adjustment is made in valuation of inventory, this will affect both opening as well as closing stock. It is also to be noted that…

ESSEL PROPACK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2068/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. 264 ITR 503. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 116 following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahavir Alluminimum Limited 297 ITR 77 held that to give effect to section 145A if there is a change in the closing stock at the end of the year, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in the opening stock of that year. This does not amount to giving total benefit to the assessee. It would be necessary to compute the true and correct profit for the purpose of the ass…

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

…, 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 whether the assessee follows Inclusive or Exclusive method of valuation of stock, the amount of unutilised MO…

RAYCHEM RPG P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4329/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodraychem Rpg Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(2) Rpg House, 463 Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, M.K.Road Worli,Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr8032L (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 145Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.4780/Mum/2013, where under identical set of facts, the issue has been restored to the file of the Ld. AO to reconsider the issue, in light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of ITO vs Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. ( 2008) 297 ITR 77 (Delhi). He, further submitted that although, the Ld. AO has accepted the fact that the ITAT has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, but he did not accept the findings of the ITAT without assigning any reasons. The Ld. AR, further submitted that in subsequent AY’s, the Ld. AO himself has accepted valuation of closing stock without conside…

ECHJAY INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ting deduction for the very same amount in the next year and so and so forth. Hence it is effectively a tax neutral exercise. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd vs CIT reported in 297 ITR 77 (Del) and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs The Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 192 of 2009 dated 1.4.2009 and in the case of CIT vs Kolsite Maschine Fabrik Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 302 of 2009 dated 20.4.2009. 3.6.2. Moreover, we also find that the valuation of inventories on ‘add o…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3