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>Court Decisions on Tax Deductions: Luxury Tax, Section 43B, and Rule 6D Interpretation</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Express Hotel P. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Express Hotel P. Ltd. - [2006] 281 ITR 160, 200 CTR 476, 153 TAXMANN 156 Issues:1. Assessment year 1983-84: Whether luxury tax collected by the assessee is deductible as a statutory liabilityRs.2. Assessment year 1984-85:a. Whether unpaid sales tax liability and municipal tax paid within the stipulated time under section 139(1) can avoid section 43B applicationRs.b. Whether the limit prescribed in rule 6D should apply to each tour individually or to all tours consolidated togetherRs.c. Can the deduction of subsisting liability be denied by invoking section 43B, even if not raised by lower authorities or in appeal petitionRs.Assessment Year 1983-84:The case involved a hotel company's challenge against the inclusion of luxury tax recovered from customers in its total receipts. The Tribunal found the luxury tax to be a statutory liability and deductible under the mercantile system of accounting. The Revenue argued that deduction was not justified due to pending constitutional validity challenge. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the liability accrued when customers were billed, regardless of pending litigation. The stay granted by the apex court was conditional, making the liability inevitable. The judgment cited the Kedarnath Jute case to support the deduction based on regular accounting practices.Assessment Year 1984-85:a. The Tribunal ruled that if unpaid sales tax and municipal tax for the last quarter are paid within the stipulated time, section 43B cannot be applied. This decision aligned with the Allied Motors case.b. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's application of rule 6D, stating that the limit should apply to each tour individually, not consolidated. This ruling was based on the Nutan Mills case.c. The Tribunal invoked section 43B for the first time, denying the deduction of luxury tax liability based on actual payment. The Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the applicability of all relevant provisions during assessment.In conclusion, the judgments addressed various issues related to tax liabilities, deductions, and accounting practices for the respective assessment years. The decisions were based on legal precedents, interpretations of relevant provisions, and factual findings by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
