TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms tax treatment on sugar sale, rejects interest provision, and denies retrospective interest on refunds.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal on the tax treatment of the amount realized on the sale of sugar, citing a previous rejection of a similar question. ... - Issues Involved:The judgment addresses the following questions of law:A) Tax treatment of amount realized on sale of additional quota of free sale sugar.B) Disallowance of provision for interest on excess levy sugar price and sugar cane price.C) Deduction of prior period expenses in computation of Book Profit for section 115JB.D) Charging of interest u/s.234D on refunds granted prior to 1/6/2003.Tax Treatment of Amount Realized on Sale of Sugar:The High Court noted that a similar question had been rejected previously in a different case. The Court referred to a specific Income Tax Appeal No.908 of 2008 involving the same issue. The Court dismissed the appeal on this issue.Disallowance of Provision for Interest on Sugar Prices:Regarding the provision for interest on excess levy sugar price and sugar cane price, the Court observed that the revenue had accepted an earlier assessment order on the same issue. Therefore, the Court considered this question not substantial for adjudication.Deduction of Prior Period Expenses:The Court mentioned that the issue of allowing deduction for prior period expenses was covered by a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. As it was already settled law, the Court found no substantial question of law to be decided.Charging of Interest on Refunds:On the matter of charging interest u/s.234D on refunds granted before 1/6/2003, the Court highlighted that the relevant provision came into effect from 1/6/2003 and did not have retrospective application. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and dismissed it without costs.
TaxTMI 
