Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/546/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 546 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-I. - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PERFECT ENGG. LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MR
BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR
SN DIVETIA for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
Date
: 24/03/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. In
this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act),
the appellant revenue has challenged order dated 18th
August, 2006 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench Camp at Baroda (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1546/Ahd/2002 for
assessment year 1998-99.
2. While
admitting the appeal, this Court had, vide order dated 10th
October, 2007, formulated the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in holding that the excise duty levied on closing stock
should not be taken into account for valuation of the closing stock?”
3. Heard
Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant and Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the respondent.
4. Mr.
S.N. Divetia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent
has invited attention to a decision of this Court in the case of
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narmada Chematur
Petrochemicals Ltd., (2010)
327 ITR 369 (Guj.) to submit that the controversy
involved in the present case stands concluded in favour of the
assessee by the said decision. In the circumstances, it is not
necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
5. In
the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narmada Chematur
Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), this Court, after discussing the issue
at length, has held that excise duty is required to be excluded at
the time of valuation of the closing stock on finished goods at the
end of the accounting period. In the circumstances, the controversy
involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid
decision. Hence, for the reasons stated in the decision of this
Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narmada Chematur
Petrochemicals Ltd., the question is answered accordingly. The
Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excise duty should
not be taken into account for valuation of the closing stock. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(
Harsha Devani, J. )
(
B.M. Trivedi, J. )
hki
Top