Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Dynavision Limited (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Dynavision Limited (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (dynavision_146_closing_stock_excise_duty.pdf)


S. 145: Excise duty need not be included in closing stock

The assessee valued its closing stock without including excise duty. The AO held that excise duty had to be included in the closing stock though the CIT(A), Tribunal and High Court (267 ITR 600 (Mad)) upheld the assessee’s plea on the basis (following English Electric Co. 243 ITR 512 (Mad)) that the inclusion of excise duty in the valuation of closing stock was permissible only if the liability for that amount in the excise duty account was given a deduction and otherwise it would be anomalous. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The assessee has been following consistently the method of valuation of closing stock which is “cost or market price whichever is lower.” Also, while the AO revalued the closing stock, he did not make any adjustment to the opening stock. Excise duty is on the manufacture of the finished product though it is quantified and collected on the selling price. Valuation of unsold stock at the close of the accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period. It cannot be regarded as source of profits. The true purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of the goods entered on the other side of the account at the time of the purchase, so that on cancelling out of the entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions in which actual sales in the course of the year has taken place and thereby showing the profit or loss actually realized on the year’s trading. The entry for stock which appears in the trading account is intended to cancel the charge for the goods bought which have remained unsold which should represent the cost of the goods” (Chainrup Sampatram 24 ITR 481 (SC) & Hindustan Zinc Ltd 291 ITR 391 SC) followed.

Contrast between British Paints India 188 ITR 44 (SC) where it was held that all “overheads” had to be included in closing stock valuation and Berger Paints 266 ITR 99 (SC) where it was held that in view of s. 43B, excise duty need not be included in closing stock

Related Judgements

  1. Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the…
  2. CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of…
  3. CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement for transfer of its industrial undertaking under which the buyer agreed to pay it interest on the unpaid consideration w.e.f 1.3.1977 and subsequently on 30.6.1978 the parties agreed to defer the date of commencement of interest to 1.7.1979 and the question arose…
  4. CIT vs. Vatika Township (Supreme Court) 

    In CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322, the Supreme Court held that the Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, was applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it was ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature….
  5. The Totgars’ Cooperative vs. ITO (Supreme Court) 

    The interest on surplus invested in short-term deposits, not being attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to the members or marketing of agricultural produce of the members, is assessable as “other income” and not as “business profits”. The words “the whole of the amount of profits and…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*