9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transfer of the DEPB credit. Thus, while the face value of the DEPB credit will fall under clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act, the difference between the sale value and the face value of the DEPB credit will fall under clause (iiid) of section 28 of the Act. The cost of acquiring the DEPB credit is not nil because the person acquires it by paying customs duty on the import content of the export product and the DEPB credit which accrues to a person against exports has a cost element in it. The DEPB credit represents part of the cost incurred by a person for manufacture of the export product and hence even where the DEPB credit is not utilized by the exporter but is transferred to another person, the credit continues to remain as a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer failed to refer to his order for previous year. The same practice was followed for all preceding assessment years. As in the closing stock of current year excise duty of ₹ 5,23,379/- was not included also excise duty of ₹ 5,22,238 was not included in opening stock of current Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer has not considered the same consistent policy, being followed for all preceding Assessment Years. So, he has not followed the same principles while considering the value of opening stock. In this background, addition made on this ground is required to be restricted to ₹ 1,141/- considering the valuation of opening stock, which is also exclusive of excise duty. - Decided in favour of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile of Assessing Officer on the belief that the Assessing Officer had no occasion to go through the amendment made out in the provisions of section 80HHC by Finance Act, 2005. In the re-assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer restored the findings in the original assessment after considering the submissions made before him. On appeal before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpaturu Colours Chemicals 233 CTR (Bom) 313 but the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of assessee. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. AR Ms. Ukti Parikh submitted that this issue is covered in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofits on transfer of the DEPB credit. 5. Facts being similar and even nothing contrary was brought to our notice by the Revenue, in view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court we set aside the orders of lower authorities and Assessing Officer is directed to grant relief to assessee in light of above legal discussion. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. In ITA No.1456/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08 the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The ld. Addl. CIT erred in disallowing adjustment u/s 145(A) of ₹ 5,23,379/- without considering the facts. He has not considered same principles should apply while valuing opening stock also. The addition made on this ground is required to be delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fees (by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment. In this circumstances the appellant has no choice but to include the excise duty liability for the inventory. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.1 The facts and issue involved in the Asst. Year 2005-06 were similar, therefore, the CIT(A) by following his earlier order dismissed .this ground. The assessee being aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 7.2 Before us the ld. AR submitted that the issue of Asst. Year 2005-06 travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.2316/Ahd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld.counsel for the assessee was not considered. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. reported at (2008) 297 ITR 77 :: 168 Taxman 27 (Delhi) has held that whenever any adjustment is made in the valuation of stock, this will effect both; opening as well as closing stock. In the present case also, the AO has not taken into consideration the opening as well as closing stock. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hereby direct the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 61,387/- and delete a sum of ₹ 4,03,662/-, Thus, this ground of assessee s appeal is allowed to that extent. 8. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge so we hold that CIT(A) erred in disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
