TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (10) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cane purchase tax was allowable expenditure in computing the total income of the assessee-company in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate at a higher rate of 35% as against 20% allowed to the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's direction to the Income-tax Officer to reconsider the allowability of Rs. 4,76,966 paid for bonus and allowed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1972-73 ? 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs.15,360 paid by the assessee company to the Income-tax Department for late payment of income-tax was not an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 ?" We shall proceed to deal with them in their proper order. Question No. 1 pertains to the deductibility of interest paid by the assessee on the arrears of cane purchase tax. It has now been held by the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 429 that the interest paid by the assessee under the provisions of the U.P. Sugar Cane Cess Act, 1956, constitutes part and parcel of the debt and, therefore, constitutes an admissible deduction. In Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732 [FB], a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to above, we must hold that strawboard is a priority industry and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of section. 80-I. Questions Nos. 2 and 7 are, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 3 and 4 go together. They pertain to the deductibility of the bonus amount. After the enactment and coming into force of the Payment of Bonus Act, which created a statutory liability to pay bonus to the employees, the assessee has been claiming both the amounts actually paid as well as the amount which it was liable to pay as a permissible expenditure. The Income-tax Officer was, however, allowing only the amount actually paid. For the assessment year 1972-73, howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the Revenue. Question No. 5 relates to the difference amount which the assessee was allowed to collect under the interim order of this court subject to the condition that such amount is put in an account in the name of the District Magistrate which it was not entitled to operate. What happened was that, by a notification dated January 8, 1971, the Government of India fixed the price of levy sugar at Rs. 125.34 per quintal. The assessee, however, claimed that it should be at a higher figure. This court allowed it to collect the price from the purchasers at the rate of Rs. 147.53 per quintal, but the difference amount was to be put in the account aforesaid. Actually, the writ petition filed by the assessee was allowed and it was entitl....