Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1443/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1443 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 ?
=========================================
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I, - Appellant(s)
Versus
DEEPAK
PETROCHEM LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MR
BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for Appellant(s) : 1,
MS
BHOOMI THAKORE for MRS SWATI SOPARKAR 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 26th
September, 2006 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench ‘A’ (the Tribunal) in ITA No.550/Ahd/2002 for assessment year
1997-98.
2. While
admitting the appeal, this Court had, vide order dated 17th
January, 2008, 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 and Ms. Bhoomi Thakore, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent.
4. Ms.
Bhoomi Thakore, 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