Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2001 (2) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment to sales tax for 1976-77?" The facts of the case are as follows: The assessee filed his return of wealth for the assessment year 1981-82 and claimed deduction of Rs. 6,43,499. This amount was described as the amount for purchase tax relating to the year 1976-77. The Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the Government of Kerala had exempted marine products from levy of purchase tax during the relevant accounting period and held that the provision was not against any real or ascertained liability. Aggrieved by the order of the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Wealth-tax Commissioner (Appeals). The Wealth-tax Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee had filed appeals subsequent to the valuation dates and that relief had been granted by the appellate authority would have no relevance for determining whether a debt was owed on the relevant valuation date. Reference was made to the decision of the Madras High Court in Late P. Appavoo Pillai v. CWT [1973] 91 ITR 138. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Whether a debt was owed by the assessee on the valuation date would depend, as was observed by this court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd.'s case [1966] 59 ITR 767 and H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi's case [1968] 69 ITR 864., on the fact that a liability had already crystallised under the relevant taxing statute on the valuation date. An income-tax li....