9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent : R. S. Agrawal ORDER We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue. Shri R.S. Agrawal appears for the assessee. On 15.1.2013 and thereafter on 15.7.2013 the Court passed following orders:- "Order dated 15.1.2013 As many as 6 substantial questions of law have been framed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad in the present appeal. However, we find that the question Nos. 1, 4 and 5, which are to the following effect "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified inlaw in upholding the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 27,00,000/- made on account of Production Incentive Bonus? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -95 being Income Tax Appeal Defective No.108 of 2007 have been listed. On 15.1.2013, while considering the matter for admission of the appeals the Court noticed that out of six substantial questions three have been decided by a decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.158 of 1999 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rudra Bilas Sehkari Chini Mills Ltd) dated 5.9.2011. So far as the claim of mollases reserved is concerned (question no.5), the same has been decided in favour of assessee by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (269 ITR 397). The appeal was admitted on questions no. 2, 3 and 6. We are informed that in respect of same assessee, in Income Tax Appeal Defective No.113 of 2007 the question as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-99?" This appeal relates to the year 1994-95. The other appeal relating to the year 1993-94 (Income Tax Appeal No.100 of 2007) has not been listed today. We have gone through the findings recorded by ITAT on the question of under valuation of the closing stock. The CIT (A) held the addition of Rs.1,06,735/- on the ground that there was no justification to disturb the consistent method of valuation adopted by the assessee. For the assessment year 1994-95 also similar findings were recorded. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to point out any error in the findings and has also not denied that similar method of valuation of the closing stock was considered and accepted in all the assessment years namely assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
