Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 361 - AT - Income TaxAddition made towards valuation of stock of scrap - Held that:- There is no scope for valuation of stock at market price as worked out by the Learned AO. The valuation of stock at cost or net realizable price whichever is lower is an accepted and established rule of commercial practice as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs CIT reported in (1953 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court). Even otherwise, we find that the Learned AO had taken the last realized selling price of M.S.Scrap whereas the closing stock needs to be valued as ‘realisable’ value or cost whichever is lower. Even on this count, the valuation made by the Learned AO is not appreciated. We find that the main buyer of the assessee M/s Tata Motors Ltd had reduced the rate per MT of M.S. scrap to ₹ 15107.4 per MT with effect from 1.7.2005 is very crucial and is already on records which fact is not disputed by the revenue. Based on the reduction in the rate with effect from 1.7.2005, the net realizable value had automatically come down and the assessee had valued the stocks applying that rate after deducting direct expenses incurred for realizing the sale and hence we find no infirmity in the valuation method adopted by the assessee. We find that the assessee had valued the closing stock by the method that it has regularly and consistently followed for valuation of stock. - Decided against revenue Addition towards commission - non deduction of tds - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) had categorically given clear findings in respect of this addition as that the TDS was indeed remitted by the successor concern i.e proprietary concern of the assessee on 31.5.2006 which is well within the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and hence the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be made on that account and is self explanatory and none of these findings were refuted by the Learned DR during the course of hearing before us . Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CIT(A) in this regard. - Decided against revenue
|