Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

1998 (2) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... BABU J.---The following questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. They relate to the assessment year 1973-74 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the payments of additional sales tax relating to the earlier years should be allowed as a deduction for the assessment year 1973-74 is sustainable in law ? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Revenue and against the assessee, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 and in the case of CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 164. It is sufficient to advert to the recent decision of the apex court in the case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 164, wherein the court observed, that the earlier de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e had been incurred in the years 1963-64 to 1968-69. This is also not a case where the assessee had made any payment towards that liability during the assessment year. The assessee, therefore, was clearly disentitled to claim the amount for which it had made a provision in its accounts towards its liability for sales tax. The case of the assessee was that though the assessee had succeeded before t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stated by the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. V Krishnan [1980] 121 ITR 859. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this court in the case of V. Krishnan [1980] 121 ITR 859 (Mad) had not noticed another decision of the Division Bench of this court, wherein it had been held that the receipt of the demand in an assessment year constitutes a valid basis in law for maki....