https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21083 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on Question No. 1 regarding the disallowed interest on late payment of cane purchase tax. However, on Question No. 2 involving the diversion of bank overdraft to directors without charging interest, the court decided in favor of the Revenue based on a previous ruling against the assessee in a similar case. As Question No. 3 was interconnected with Question No. 2, no separate answer was provided. The reference was answered without any order as to costs. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21083 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on Question No. 1 regarding the disallowed interest on late payment of cane purchase tax. However, on Question No. 2 involving the diversion of bank overdraft to directors without charging interest, the court decided in favor of the Revenue based on a previous ruling against the assessee in a similar case. As Question No. 3 was interconnected with Question No. 2, no separate answer was provided. The reference was answered without any order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21083