TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : For A.Y. 2005-06 cross appeals have been filed arising from the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad dated 01/04/2009 and the assessee has also filed a cross objection. For A.Y. 2006-07 there are cross appeals arising from the order of CIT(A)-VIII dated 20/11/2009. [A] ITA No.2187/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee s appeal) 2. Ground raised by the assessee are argumentative in nature, however, the substantive ground is ground No.1; reproduced below:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the alleged under valuation of closing stock amounting to Rs.22,02,315/-. 2.1. Facts in brief as e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to br4ing the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. 7.5. Therefore, under these circumstances, the appellant is required to include the Excise Duty in the value of closing stock. The case laws relied upon by the Ld.A.R. do not support his case as they have been rendered on different facts. In view of this the addition made by the A.O. amounting to Rs.22,02,315/- in the income of the appellant is hereby confirmed. The alternative contention of the Ld.A.R. regarding corresponding change in opening stock should be made, has also been considered. This is being consequential in nature and not being in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. 327 ITR 369 (Guj.). It has also been argued that in the past no such adjustment was ever made, hence the adjustment for the year under consideration is otherwise revenue neutral for this legal proposition case law relied upon is CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Ltd. 307 ITR 202 (SC). Assessee has also placed reliance on Ashwin A.Shah 1 ITR 356 (Trib)[Ahd.] for the legal proposition that the liability arises only at the time of removal of goods form the factory. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed in above, we hereby reverse the finding of the ld.CIT(A) and allow this ground. Assessee s appeal is allowed. [B] ITA No.2365/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods remains with the seller till that point, it is the responsibility of the seller to supply gas to the buyer till that point and whatever charges he incurs till that point are recovered by him as the price of seller of gas. This fact is also verifiable from the copy of sales invoices, specimen thereof was filed during the appellate proceedings. Thus, the contract of sale and the decision of Tribunal as referred to above namely Dy.CIT Vs. Reebok India Co. 100 TTJ 976 (Del) is applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant. 6.9 Therefore, keeping in view the principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above, it is held that the contract between the GAIL and the appellant is a contract of sale of gas and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anand. Considering those facts, in our opinion, ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) wrongly invoked. This ground of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. [C] Assessee s CO No.200/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 (In ITA No.2365/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2005-06) 9. Through this cross objection, the only reason for filing was that the issue being covered by a decision of the Tribunal (as cited supra), the ground of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. Since a view has already been expressed while deciding the appeal of the Revenue, this CO has become redundant, therefore dismissed. [D] ITA No.839/Ahd/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 (Assessee s appeal) 10. The substantive Ground No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
