Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/176/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 176 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
M/S.
DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MR
BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE
NOT RECD BACK 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 08th
February, 2006 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench ‘A’ (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1002/Ahd/2001 for assessment year
1996-97.
2. While
admitting the appeal, this Court had, vide order dated 20th
November, 2007, formulated the following substantial question of
law:-
“Whether
in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was justified in holding that the excise duty 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. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on
behalf of the respondent assessee.
4. Considering
the fact that the controversy involved in the present case stands
concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.,
(2010) 327 ITR 369
wherein the Court 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, it is not necessary to set
out the facts and contentions in detail.
5. Hence,
for the reasons stated in the decision of this Court in Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.
(supra), the question is answered accordingly. The Tribunal was
justified in law in holding that the excise duty and import 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