1993 (2) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the two questions referred to it, one in favour of the Revenue and the other against the Department. For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the facts in one of the appeals, viz., the one arising from R. C. No. 49 of 1975 (see [1978] 112 ITR 26). The basic facts in all the cases are identical ; only the assessment years and amounts are different. The two questions referred in R.C. No. 49 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The assessee is a commission agent in jaggery. The assessment year concerned is 1968-69. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee had collected certain amounts by way of sales tax but inasmuch as he was disputing the very levy of sales tax during that year, he collected it under the name "rusum".. He was questioning his liability in various proceedings. Be that as it may, all doubts in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... did not actually remit the tax during that assessment year. So far as the first question is concerned, there can hardly be any doubt. It constitutes his business receipt, though collected under the name " rusum ". ( see Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC)).The only question is whether it is deductible in that assessment year though it was not actually remitted. It is no....