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>Delhi High Court affirms Tribunal's ruling on Indian Income-tax Act interpretation</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi Versus Phool Chand Jiwan Ram</h3> The High Court of Delhi upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case involving the interpretation of section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The ... Profits Chargeable To Tax Issues involved: Interpretation of section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding deletion of a sum from assessment under trading liability.Summary:The High Court of Delhi considered a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the deletion of a sum from assessment under trading liability. The case involved the firm M/s. Phool Chand Jiwan Ram engaged in the purchase and sale of cotton piece-goods. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added a sum to the firm's income, considering it liable under section 10(2A) of the Act. The firm appealed, and the matter was remanded for further inquiries. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) restricted the addition based on the findings. Both the assessee and the department appealed to the Tribunal, which modified the order and deleted a portion of the addition. The Commissioner of Income-tax then brought this reference before the High Court.The Tribunal found that a certain amount represented a trading liability allowed in earlier years and could be treated as income. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, noting that the goods purchased and interest credited had been allowed as deductions in previous assessments. However, a separate argument was raised regarding a payment made to another firm on behalf of the assessee. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's view that this payment did not constitute a trading liability under section 10(2A) as it was a credit for an amount borrowed to discharge a liability to the other firm. The Court emphasized that the statutory fiction of section 10(2A) should be applied strictly to trading liabilities allowed in earlier assessments.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering the reference question in the affirmative against the applicant. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
