Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. ITO

14 DTR 206Reported decision2008#4796 most cited

What is Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Where an assessee follows the procedure laid down by the ICAI and the Tax Auditor reports in Clause 12(b) of Form 3CD that no adjustment is required under Section 145A, CENVAT credit need not be added to closing stock.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. ITO · Section 145A · CENVAT credit · closing stock · Tax Audit Report · Form 3CD · ICAI procedure

Issues it is cited on

section 24(a)section 80hsection 145asection 35(2ab)section 80hhcsection 80hhwritten down valueblock of assetscomputer softwareintangible assetssection 44asection 35

Judgments citing Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. ITO

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…unutilized balance of MODVAT credit is nothing but excise duty paid on inputs to be utilized on future dispatch of finished goods. The said credit is not related to the closing stock of raw-material and should not be added to the closing stock and relied upon 14 DTR 206 Mum, HawkinsCookers Ltd. vs. ITO, CIT vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2008) 2 DTR 36(Bom) , DCIT vs. Venus Wire Industries Ltd. (2006) 99 TTJ 561 (Mum) & DCIT vs. M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) (P) Ltd. (2011-TIOL-351-ITAT, Mum) and argued that the decision of Melmould Corporation vs. CIT 202 ITR 789 (Bom) is not applicable as soon as in the…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

…unutilized balance of MODVAT credit is nothing but excise duty paid on inputs to be utilized on future dispatch of finished goods. The said credit is not related to the closing stock of raw-material and should not be added to the closing stock and relied upon 14 DTR 206 Mum, Hawkins Cookers Ltd. vs. ITO, CIT vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2008) 2 DTR 36(Bom) , DCIT vs. Venus Wire Industries Ltd. (2006) 99 TTJ 561 (Mum) & DCIT vs. M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) (P) Ltd. (2011-TIOL-351-ITAT, Mum) and argued that the decision of Melmould Corporation vs. CIT 202 ITR 789 (Bom) is not applicable as soon as in th…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1999-2000 Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Dcit Range 3(1), 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Dcit Range 3(1), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar
Section 115JSection 145ASection 244A

…unutilized balance of MODVAT credit is nothing but excise duty paid on inputs to be utilized on future dispatch of finished goods. The said credit is not related to the closing stock of raw-material and should not be added to the closing stock and relied upon 14 DTR 206 Mum, Hawkins Cookers Ltd. vs. ITO, CIT vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2008) 2 DTR 36(Bom) , DCIT vs. Venus Wire Industries Ltd. (2006) 99 TTJ 561 (Mum) & DCIT vs. M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) (P) Ltd. (2011-TIOL-351-ITAT, Mum) and argued that the decision of Melmould Corporation vs. CIT 202 ITR 789 (Bom) is not applicable as soon as in th…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 8739/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…id extent. In support, the reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 116 and decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. ITO (ITA No.505/Mum/2004 (14 DTR 206) 14.2. We have gone through the submissions made and cases relied upon by both the sides. This ground being a legal ground is admitted for adjudication. 14.3. The brief facts are that the AO vide its order dated 5th February, 2010, passed under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y.2006-07, made an addition under section 145A of the Act to the c…