Case LawHigh Court › Ita/5/2014 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Ori...

Ita/5/2014 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Orissa Mining Corpn

High Court 21 Feb 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Ita/5/2014 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Orissa Mining Corpn
Date of order
21 Feb 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/5/2014 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Orissa Mining Corpn, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Order No. 10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 5 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, …. Appellant Bhubaneswar, Khurda Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd., …. Respondent Bhubaneswar, Khurda Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 21.02.2022 1. The Petitioner (Income Tax Department) in this appeal is against the order dated 8[th] November, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA No.163/CTK/2013 for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The issue projected by the Department concerns the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of closing stock valuation on the ground that the Assessee had failed to comply with the accounting standards which was mandatory for it to follow. In the impugned order of the ITAT in para 2.1 it has been specifically noted that the Assessee had pointed out that it was valuing closing stock on cost or market value whichever is less whereas the AO seeking to value it at net realizable value. The issue was covered by the decision of the ITAT for the preceding years i.e. 2006-07 and 2008-09 in favour of the Assessee. The ITAT then noted “learned DR was fair enough to concede the position.” 3. It is not sought to be urged before us by learned counsel for the Department that the above concession was erroneously made. Also following the rule of consistency, the Court finds no reason to interfere. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S.K. Jena/P.A. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan