C. I.T. , Kolkata - III v. Phoenix Industries Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-1031-23]

Citation 2014-LL-1031-23
Appellant Name C. I.T. , Kolkata - III
Respondent Name Phoenix Industries Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/10/2014
Assessment Year 1998-99
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags valuation of closing stock
Bot Summary: Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate The Court : This matter was earlier mentioned by Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the revenue. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal E Bench, Kolkata dated 21.4.2006 for the assessment year 1998-99 was admitted on the following question: Whether, the excise duty to be considered while valuation of closing stock when such duty has not been paid by the assessee Heard Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the appellant. We find that the issue stands covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Dynavisioin Ltd.: 348 ITR 380 and also by an earlier judgment of this court in CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.: 254 ITR 503. Going by the said decisions, the question is answered in the negative and against the revenue. Learned Central Government Advocate is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the assessee within fortnight from date.


ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 459 of 2006 CIT, KOLKATA III Versus PHOENIX INDUSTRIES LTD BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 31st October, 2014. Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate Court : This matter was earlier mentioned by Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for revenue. This appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal E Bench, Kolkata dated 21.4.2006 for assessment year 1998-99 was admitted on following question: Whether, excise duty to be considered while valuation of closing stock when such duty has not been paid by assessee ? Heard Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for appellant. We find that issue stands covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Dynavisioin Ltd. (SC): 348 ITR 380 and also by earlier judgment of this court in CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. (No.2) (Cal): 254 ITR 503. Going by said decisions, question is answered in negative and against revenue. appeal is dismissed. Learned Central Government Advocate is directed to serve copy of this order upon assessee within fortnight from date. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) km AR(CR) C. I.T. , Kolkata - III v. Phoenix Industries Ltd
Report Error