ACIT vs. Torrent Cables Ltd.
Supreme Court Of India
Assessment Year : 1995-96
Section : 145
S.H. Kapadia, Cj. And Madan B. Lokur, J.
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 32817 Of 2010
Civil Appeal No. 6927 Of 2012
September 25, 2012
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
The civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. Leave granted.
3. This civil appeal filed by the Department concerns Assessment Year 1995-1996.
4. On going through the records, we find that the assessee Company has been following the net method for valuing the closing stock. It includes excise duty at the time of removal of goods. Following the order of this Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd.  26 taxmann.com 331 (SC), this civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Excise duty – Execution of excise duty at time of valuing closing stock of finished goods
Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting – Valuation of stock – Assessment year 1995-96 – Whether excise duty is to be excluded at time of valuing closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting period [Para 1] – Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.  194 Taxman 103 (Guj.) (para 2) followed.
CASE REFERRED TO
CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.  194 Taxman 103 (Guj.).
Ms. H.N. Devani, J. – The Assessment Year is 1995-96. While admitting the appeal on 04.04.2008, the Court had formulated the following question:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to exclude the excise duty at the time of valuing closing stock at the end of accounting period?”
2. It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of even date rendered by this Court in the case of the Asstt. CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd.  194 Taxman 103 .
3. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in Tax Appeal No.852 of 2007, this appeal is also dismissed.
[Citation : 354 ITR 163]