News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
I-T - Whether change in method of stock valuation can be denied merely on basis that it had resulted into losses for assessee company in year of such change in method of stock valuation - NO: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

KOLKATA, NOV 06, 2015: THE issue is - Whether change in method of stock valuation can be denied merely on basis that it had resulted into losses for assessee company in year of such change in method of stock valuation. NO is the answer.

Facts of the case

The assessee is an investment and finance company. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.11.2006 declaring a loss. AO noticed that there were no purchase and sale of shares made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the loss was claimed by the assessee as a result of change in the method of valuation of closing stock of shares adopted by it. AO, therefore, required the assessee to offer its explanation in the matter. In reply, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee company that the valuation of stock all along was adopted at cost. However, the statutory auditors during the year under consideration pointed out that the valuation of stock in trade should be adopted at cost or market price whichever was lower. Since this opinion of the auditors was based on guidelines issued by the RBI for non-banking finance companies as well as accounting standard issued by the ICAI, the assessee changed the method of valuation of stock of shares from "at cost" to "cost or market price whichever is the lowest", which resulted into loss. This explanation offered by the assessee to justify the change in the method of valuation of stock by the assessee was not found acceptable by the AO. According to him, the method earlier followed by the assessee regularly could not be changed without any justifiable reason and the assessee could not be allowed to arbitrarily change such method to suit his purpose. AO therefore, rejected the change of method of valuation of stock adopted by the assessee and took the valuation of closing stock of shares at cost, which resulted in the disallowance of assessee’s claim for loss. The disallowance made by AO on account of its claim for loss due to change in the method of valuation of stock of shares was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition made by the AO on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee for loss.

Having heard the matter, the Tribunal held that,

++ it is a basic principle for accounting that the valuation of stock in trade has to be done "at cost or market price, whichever is lower" and the same is in consonance with other important accounting principle that anticipated loss is required to be considered, while drawing the final accounts. In the present case, the assessee however was earlier following the method of valuing the stock of shares at cost which, in my opinion, was not correct method followed by the assessee, as the shares represented its stock in trade. As per the advice of the statutory auditors, which was duly supported by the relevant guidelines issued by the RBI as well as Accounting Standard-2 issued by the ICAI, the assessee, therefore, changed the method of valuation of stock of shares from "at cost" to "either cost or market price whichever lower" and since the new method adopted by the assessee was more proper and correct and the same was consistently followed by the assessee in the subsequent years, I am of the opinion that there was no justification on the part of the AO to reject the same merely because it had resulted in loss. The CIT(A), on the other hand, has appreciated all the relevant facts of the case in proper perspective and allowed the claim of the assessee for loss as a result of change in the method of valuation of closing stock, which was fully justified. I therefore do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue. Upholding the same, I dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-1789-ITAT-KOL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.