The High Court dismissed the Revenue's Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as not pressed because the tax effect fell below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs specified in Circular No.3/2018, preserving legal questions for a larger case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Tax Case Appeal No.628 of 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax -I Tiruchirapalli.
.... Appellant
Vs.
Stm.V.Poongothai No.26, Ramanujam Nagar, Karur.
.... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.11.2009 made in ITA No.677/Mds/2009 for the Assessment year 2005-06.and against the order dated:19/02/2009 and made in ITA.115/07-08 on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli and against the order dated:26/09/2007 and made in PAN/GIR.No.AAGPP5603A on the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Tiruchirapalli.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Sr. Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan
J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.11.2009 made in ITA No.677/Mds/2009 for the Assessment year 2005-06. by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the additions of Rs.12,61,615/- for the AY 2004-05 and Rs.5,33,595/- for the AY 2005-06 made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the global method of valuation of closing stock for shares whereas the assessee had adopted scrip-wise valuation which gave a distorted picture of the value of closing stock?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the assessee's contention that the assessee had a right to choose its own method of valuation of closing stock of shares contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. British Paints Ltd., 188 ITR 44 wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer was duty bound to work out the correct profits by adopting the correct method of valuation of closing stock?”
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment , Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II No.44, Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli.
+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.82508
+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.83220
TCA No.628 of 2010 VD(CO) GSP(10/01/2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Tiruchirapalli
Stm.V.Poongothai
VINEET KOTHARI
ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
