Investment Ltd. v. CIT

77 ITR 533Supreme Court of India1970#1348 most cited

What is Investment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The principle of valuing closing stock at cost or market value, whichever is lower, is a recognized and acceptable method of accounting.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Investment Ltd. v. CIT · 77 ITR 533 · Section 145 · closing stock valuation · stock valuation method · cost or market value lower · recognized accounting practice · acceptable method of valuation · accounting policy · business income

Also reported as

2011 SCC OnLine DEL 4855

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 145

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 120(4)(b)section 4asection 36(1)(v)section 10(20)section 61section 46section 269uasection 40a(7)section 2(47)(v)section 14a disallowancesection 145(1)

Judgments citing Investment Ltd. v. CIT

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…opt one of the method for the purposes of the assessment. It is entirely within the discretion of the assessee who is entitled to value closing stock of any accounting year either at cost price or market value, whichever is lower (Investment Ltd. Vs CIT. 1970 77 ITR 533 (SC). The principle underlying this is to provide result for the loss which the assessee is likely to incur during the period by giving option to adopt lower of the two value. The trader is protected from being taxed in respect of profit which he did not actually earned. The consistent practice over a number of years by the assessee can be change…

Alliance Mall Developers Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2742/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…had placed reliance on the following decisions of the apex Court: ITA No.2742-43/Mum/2018 Alliance Mall Developers Co. Private Limited Assessment Years :2013-14 & 14-15 (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC); (2) Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC); and (3) A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). 11. We may recapitulate the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) : “ A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade ei…

Shri. Shankarlal Gilada vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/200002/2018HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ITA No.200002 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SHRI SHANKARLAL GILADA, H.NO.1-10/5, KHOOBA PLOTS, GULBARGA – 585 002. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI G. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. SHANKAR AND SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATES) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1) (2), BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED U…

M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

ITA 854/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.852 To 856/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 & 2011-12 To 2012-13) M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata / Jcit, Ltd. Range-12, Kolkata Flat No.A-7 & A-8, 4Th Floor, Fmc Fortuna, 234/3A, Ajc Bose Road, Near Minto Park, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3187F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nized and systematic manner. In fact, the AO has allowed all the expenditure debited to the P/L, thereby accepting the existence of business. 4.2 Thereafter, the Ld. A/R has relief on the following case laws - i) Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [77 ITR 533] ii) Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [82 ITR 547] iii) Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. vs. ACIT [85 TTJ 821] The Ld. A/R has further submitted the following - "Lastly, it is submitted that the CIT(A)-)-XXX has held in favour of the assessee in its own case for AY 20OB-09 on identical facts. Following the said order, your predecessor i.e. CIT(A) XII allowed…

M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

ITA 853/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.852 To 856/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 & 2011-12 To 2012-13) M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata / Jcit, Ltd. Range-12, Kolkata Flat No.A-7 & A-8, 4Th Floor, Fmc Fortuna, 234/3A, Ajc Bose Road, Near Minto Park, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3187F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nized and systematic manner. In fact, the AO has allowed all the expenditure debited to the P/L, thereby accepting the existence of business. 4.2 Thereafter, the Ld. A/R has relief on the following case laws - i) Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [77 ITR 533] ii) Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [82 ITR 547] iii) Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. vs. ACIT [85 TTJ 821] The Ld. A/R has further submitted the following - "Lastly, it is submitted that the CIT(A)-)-XXX has held in favour of the assessee in its own case for AY 20OB-09 on identical facts. Following the said order, your predecessor i.e. CIT(A) XII allowed…

M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

ITA 852/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.852 To 856/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 & 2011-12 To 2012-13) M/S. Ratnabali Commodities Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata / Jcit, Ltd. Range-12, Kolkata Flat No.A-7 & A-8, 4Th Floor, Fmc Fortuna, 234/3A, Ajc Bose Road, Near Minto Park, Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3187F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nized and systematic manner. In fact, the AO has allowed all the expenditure debited to the P/L, thereby accepting the existence of business. 4.2 Thereafter, the Ld. A/R has relief on the following case laws - i) Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [77 ITR 533] ii) Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [82 ITR 547] iii) Mafatlal Holdings Ltd. vs. ACIT [85 TTJ 821] The Ld. A/R has further submitted the following - "Lastly, it is submitted that the CIT(A)-)-XXX has held in favour of the assessee in its own case for AY 20OB-09 on identical facts. Following the said order, your predecessor i.e. CIT(A) XII allowed…

M/S. Gl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

…rable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Macmillan & Co 33 ITR 182 wherein it has been held that the choice of the method of accounting lies with the assessee. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of INVESTMENT LTD VS. CIT 77 ITR 533 and stated that the taxpayer is free to employ any method of accounting but it should be consistently and regularly followed by him. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in United commercial Bank 240 ITR 355 wherein the decision of the British paints India Ltd 188 ITR 44 was considered and stated that if the method o…

Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1662/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1590/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S.Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Circle-1(1)(1), Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, 3Rd Floor, Platinium Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Subhanpura, Circle, Vadodara-390007. Opp. Ganga Jamna Hospital, Vadodara-390023. Pan: Aadcd2030M

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R

…DCIT – 96 taxmann.com 547 which has considered various judgments of the Hon’ble SC and High Courts for the following proposition: a) Assessee is free to employ his own method of accounts and that it shouldbe consistently followed. - Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 77 ITR 533 (SC) - CIT vs. Krishna Swami Mudaliar 53 ITR 122 (SC) - CIT vs. Advance Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 275 ITR 30 (Guj.) b) Project Completion / Unit Sale Method is a recognized method. - Manjusha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 393 ITR 644 (Guj.) - CIT vs. Hill View Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 451 (P&H) - Manish Buildwell P. Ltd. 204 Taxman 106 (Del.…

M/S Subash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 739/ASR/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Subhash Chander Aggarwal, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T., Prop. M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Range-II, Jalandhar Parkash, 157, Gulab Devi Hospital Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AAKPA 7004L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 31.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Asses…

M/S. Sbash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Range -II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 738/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Subhash Chander Aggarwal, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T., Prop. M/s. Prabh Dayal Om Range-II, Jalandhar Parkash, 157, Gulab Devi Hospital Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AAKPA 7004L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 31.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Asses…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Ashok Bhansali, Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2458/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2458/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vishal Ashok Bhansali C-112, Grand Paradi Income Tax-19(3) बनाम/ A.K.Marg, Kemps Corner Room No.206, 2Nd Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 036 Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeipb-9981-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Written Submissions dated 01/08/2018For Respondent: Rajeev Gubangotra, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…y accounting principle is recognized and has been accepted then the stock valued according to that method is to be accepted- Option to adopt any system of accounting clearly lies with the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of investment Ltd. vs. CIT 77 ITR 533 has held "A tax payer is free to employ for the purpose of his trade his own method of keeping accounts and for 5 Vishal Ashok Bhansali Assessment Year-2012-13 that purpose to value his stock in trade either at cost or market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently and regularly cannot be disturbed by the Departmental Auth…

M/S Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders P. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 686/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

…omputed the income accordingly. Whether such action of the revenue authorities is justified or not needs to be examined in light of the jurisdictional pronouncements. 29. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Investment Ltd V/s CIT reported in (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC) , where their Lordships have held that Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt.Ltd ITA No.121/Ind/2016 &686/Ind/2016 “assessee is free to employ for the purpose of his trade , his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade either at cost or at market price. A method of accounting adopted by the trader consistently…

G2 Corporate Services LLP, (Formerly M/S. G2 Corporate Services Ltd), Sec'Bad, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 833/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Sitaram, DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(pages 185 to 191) (for Asst. Year 2009-10 page 73 of the paper book) (for Asst. Year 2011-12 page 132 of the paper book) 2. The Assessing Officer relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax 77 ITR 533. (Copy placed at pages 175 to 178 of the paper book.) He relied on the observation of the Hon'ble court "that the description of shares and securities in the balance sheet as 'investment'is not decisive". It is respectfully submitted that the AO has not brought out fully the facts of that case relied upon which are as follows- (a) In that case th…

G2 Corporate Services LLP, (Formerly M/S. G2 Corporate Services Ltd), Sec'Bad, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 832/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Sitaram, DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(pages 185 to 191) (for Asst. Year 2009-10 page 73 of the paper book) (for Asst. Year 2011-12 page 132 of the paper book) 2. The Assessing Officer relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax 77 ITR 533. (Copy placed at pages 175 to 178 of the paper book.) He relied on the observation of the Hon'ble court "that the description of shares and securities in the balance sheet as 'investment'is not decisive". It is respectfully submitted that the AO has not brought out fully the facts of that case relied upon which are as follows- (a) In that case th…

Sanat M. Dalal Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6461/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…12 After analysing the facts of the case and written submissions and also the orders of the authorities below, we find that the assessee deserves to succeed in its appeal and Cross Objections. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd in 77 ITR 533(SC) is applicable on the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "just because the shares are shown as investments and just because the shares are valued at cost would not lead to a conclusion that profit/loss arising out of the sale of shares would be capital gains/loss. These two facts are not determining factors." It…

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 5613/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5613/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Rustomjee Evershine Joint Tax, Central Circle 10 Venture Private Limited बनाम/ Room No.802,8Th Floor Global City, Narangi Bypass Road Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road Close To Viva College Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Virar(West),Thane Thane-401 303 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.111/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rustomjee Evershine Joint Deputy Commissioner Of Venture Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 10 बनाम/ Room No.802,8Th Floor Global City, Narangi Bypass Road Close To Viva College Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road Vs. Virar(West),Thane Mumbai – 400 020 Thane-401 303 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaar-7687-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Naresh Kumar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.Daya Sagar, Ld. DR (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…make an assessment in the manner provided in s. 144.” 10. In support of the above findings, this Court had placed reliance on the following decisions of the apex Court: (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC); (2) Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC); and (3) A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). 11. We may recapitulate the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) : “ A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts, and for that purpose to value his stock-in-trade ei…

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 318/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ss arose on the year end revaluation of securities. Our view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., passed in ITA N0.330 of 2012; United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT, 240 ITR 355(SC); Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 77 ITR 533 (SC); and CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda, 262 ITR 334 (Bom). Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and considering the classification of security so made and the loss arose on account of revaluation of securities are required to be allowed. Ld D.R. has not…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…ed out that the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) and, thus, it is clear that the assessee‘s books of account have not been rejected. Ld Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd v CIT, 77 ITR 533 (SC), wherein, it has been held at pages 537 to 538 that the method of accounting consistently and regularly followed by the assessee cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping account or of valuation. The method of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if…

Arun Bahirwani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2232/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2232/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Arun Bahirwani (Prop. Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Satya Tex), Income Tax – 15(2), V. Unit No. 605 Business Aayakar Bhawan, Suites,Plot No. 83, Mumbai – 400 020. S.V. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Agjpb7487M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai,DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rudence on the other is also to be followed for computing income of the assessee. In support, the ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) and Investment Limited v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC). It was observed by learned CIT(A) that the assessee is contending that it is consistently following FIFO method for valuation of inventory while the auditors of the assessee had stated that it followed a cost method and hence the AO was left with no option but to take average rate for valuation of inventory which assessment order of the AO w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 767/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s of the assessee, therefore any loss on account of sale of capital asset cannot be claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account of the assessee. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Investment Ltd Vs CIT -77 ITR 533 wherein it was held that nomenclature of a particular item does not decide it's nature. A tax payer is free to employ for the purpose of his trade his own method of keeping accounts. In that case the assessee involved was a dealer of shares. Applying the same logic the loss claimed on stock in Trade cannot be treated as a revenue loss because the…