Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1983 (3) TMI 78 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules no sales tax liability on assessee, rejects bank guarantee inclusion in sale price. The Tribunal affirmed that there was no sales tax liability on the assessee totaling Rs. 67,50,872. It held that contingent liabilities are not deductible ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal rules no sales tax liability on assessee, rejects bank guarantee inclusion in sale price.

                            The Tribunal affirmed that there was no sales tax liability on the assessee totaling Rs. 67,50,872. It held that contingent liabilities are not deductible and rejected the argument that the bank guarantee should be considered part of the sale price. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling that individual exporters were not liable for sales tax, striking down the requirement for deposits or guarantees. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' decision.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Sales tax liability on the assessee.
                            2. Contingent liability and its deductibility.
                            3. Classification of purchases and their tax implications.
                            4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision.
                            5. Treatment of the bank guarantee as part of the sale price.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Sales Tax Liability on the Assessee:
                            The main point in this appeal is the sales tax liability. The assessee, an exporter, participated in export auctions conducted by the Coffee Board, which required exporters to make a contingency deposit or furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the sales tax liability. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15-4-1980, declared that there was no liability on the part of individual exporters towards sales tax and struck down the circular requiring such deposits or guarantees. Consequently, the ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee is not entitled to deduct the claimed sales tax liability of Rs. 67,50,872 as no such liability existed.

                            2. Contingent Liability and Its Deductibility:
                            The assessee argued that the bank guarantee represented an ascertained liability, which should be deductible. However, the Supreme Court's decision clarified that there was no actual sales tax liability, and the requirement for a bank guarantee was merely a precautionary measure. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded that a contingent liability cannot be deducted as it is not an actual liability. This principle is supported by precedents such as Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and M.S.P. Senthikumara Nadar & Sons v. CIT.

                            3. Classification of Purchases and Their Tax Implications:
                            The assessee classified the sum of Rs. 67,50,872 into three categories:
                            1. Rs. 42,61,690 for purchases covered by export contracts at the time of auction.
                            2. Rs. 24,70,598 for purchases covered by export contracts at the time of payment and delivery.
                            3. Rs. 18,583 for export sales after the auction.

                            The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the liability for Rs. 18,583 but disallowed the rest, stating that the Coffee Board did not demand sales tax but only a security deposit or bank guarantee, which was contingent and not an actual liability.

                            4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision:
                            The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, which quashed the Coffee Board's circular, is declaratory of the law and applies retrospectively. This means the decision is binding from the inception of the law, not just from the date of the judgment. Therefore, there was no sales tax liability on the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80.

                            5. Treatment of the Bank Guarantee as Part of the Sale Price:
                            The assessee's contention that the bank guarantee should be treated as part of the sale price was rejected. The Tribunal noted that the Coffee Board never treated the amount as part of the sale price, and the circular clearly indicated it was a contingent liability. The assessee did not provide any evidence to show that the bank guarantee was part of the sale price. Therefore, the bank guarantee cannot be treated as sales tax liability or part of the sale price.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, concluding that there was no sales tax liability on the assessee amounting to Rs. 67,50,872. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that contingent liabilities are not deductible, and the bank guarantee cannot be treated as part of the sale price.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found