Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2235 2009 SLD 2235 (2009) 318 ITR 116
Bombay High Court
INCOME-TAX APPEAL No. 192 OF 2009, APRIL 1, 2009
F. L. REBELLO AND R. S. MOHITE, JJ.
J. S. Saluja for the Appellant. A. K. Jasani for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method Of Accounting - Rejection of Accounts Where Commissioner (Appeals) had directed Assessing Officer to make ment of unutilized Modvat credit to opening stock and Department gave concession for so directing Assessing Officer, no question of law arose from Tri-bunal's order upholding order of Commissioner (Appeals) [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P.) Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 116 (Bom.) Where the Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to make adjustment of unutilized Modvat credit to the opening stock : Held that when counsel for the assessee contended that the closing stock of the previous year be taken as opening stock of the next year and that the Assessing Officer be directed to establish the valuation for closing stock as opening stock of the next year and the departmental representative stated that he had no objection for the same, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). J. S. Saluja for the Appellant. A. K. Jasani for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The substantial question of law as raised in this appeal is as under : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby he directed the Assessing Officer to make adjustment of unutilized Modvat credit to the opening stock and thus ignoring the ratio laid down in Melmould Corporation v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 789 (Bom) wherein it was held that changing the value of opening stock will lead to chain reaction and hence the same should not be done ?" 2. This question has been dealt with and answered by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v.Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 77 (Delhi). This question concerns the method of valuation of inventory as contemplated by section 145A of the Income-tax Act. In the case before the Delhi High Court, the Assessing Officer contended that section 145A did not permit the assessee to make a change in the valuation of the opening stock as on April 1, 1998, though it permitted a change in the closing stock as on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492