Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of the price difference liability in the assessment year 1983-84 on the basis of the demand raised by the competent authority, notwithstanding pending litigation challenging the demand.
Analysis: The liability arose from a statutory demand for enhanced wheat purchase price under the licensing and control order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The amount was demanded during the relevant previous year, and the assessee had claimed it in that assessment year. The earlier Calcutta High Court decisions relied on by the Department were distinguished on facts because in those cases the amounts had not been demanded in the relevant year and became real and enforceable only later. The principle in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. was applied, since a statutory liability is deductible in the year in which it is incurred or demanded, even if its enforceability is disputed in litigation.
Conclusion: The deduction of Rs. 1,70,595 was allowable in the assessment year 1983-84 and the Department's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The statutory liability was held deductible in the year of demand, so the assessee succeeded and the departmental appeal did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory liability becomes deductible when it is demanded and accrues as a real and enforceable obligation, even if the assessee disputes the demand in pending litigation.