SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Glowshine Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. - (Supreme Court) (04 May 2023)

On mere recording of the inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade

MANU/SC/0524/2023

Direct Taxation

The Revenue has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) by which the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs. 15,94,06,500¬ was deleted.

ITAT has neither dealt with the findings given by the AO nor verified/examined the total sales made by the assessee during the relevant time and during the previous years. Merely on the basis of recording of the inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade. As per the settled position of law in order to examine whether a particular transaction is sale of capital assets or business expense, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined. From the order passed by the ITAT, it appears that the ITAT has without examining any of the relevant factors confirmed that the transaction was transfer of stock in trade.

As per the claim of the assessee and the entry made and reflected in the ledger account of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008, an amount of Rs. 15,94,06,500 was paid to a third party i.e., SICCL. However, thereafter, according to the assessee, there was a rectification deed and the amount was reduced from Rs. 15,94,06,500¬ to Rs. 5,24,27,354¬. The ITAT has not even questioned the factum of refund of differential amount of Rs. 10,69,79,146 to the purchaser on account of rectification deed dated 30.05.2008. The ITAT ought to have appreciated that the moment the receipt of amount is received and recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee unless shown to be refunded/returned, it is to be treated as income in the hands of the recipient.

The ITAT has not considered the relevant aspects/relevant factors while considering the transaction in question as stock in trade and has not considered the relevant aspects which were required to be considered by the ITAT. The matter is required to be remanded to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh and to take into consideration the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or as sale of capital assets or business transaction. Appeal allowed in part.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADDITION   TRANSACTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved