CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd.

315 ITR 211High Court2009#3737 most cited

What is CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd. authority for?

The provision for obsolescence of finished goods and spares is permissible. The issue relates to the allowance of provision for obsolescence of finished goods and spares.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. · provision for obsolescence · finished goods · spares · accounting policy · accounting standard

Also reported as

221 CTR 767

Judgments citing CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd.

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1621/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…always prudent to provide for the estimated losses and the valuation of obsolete stock at net realizable price should be accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 211 (Raj.). Finally, it was submitted that the method of valuation regularly followed should be accepted even if the change of method has not accepted in the first year :- 28 -: as long as the method adopted is in accordance with accepted accounting principles. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.…

Rm.K.V.Fabrics Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1594/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…always prudent to provide for the estimated losses and the valuation of obsolete stock at net realizable price should be accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 211 (Raj.). Finally, it was submitted that the method of valuation regularly followed should be accepted even if the change of method has not accepted in the first year :- 28 -: as long as the method adopted is in accordance with accepted accounting principles. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.…

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…always prudent to provide for the estimated losses and the valuation of obsolete stock at net realizable price should be accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Wolkem India Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 211 (Raj.). Finally, it was submitted that the method of valuation regularly followed should be accepted even if the change of method has not accepted in the first year :- 28 -: as long as the method adopted is in accordance with accepted accounting principles. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.…

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

Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment 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…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री सक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य एर्ुं राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND 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 :2…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री सक्तिजीि डे, न्याययक सदस्य एर्ुं राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND 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 :2…

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1433/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1399/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 388/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…

M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl..Ci.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the AO has clearly brought ou…