Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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 / RSS

1984 (10) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urchase tax would constitute an admissible deduction for 1973-74 and 1974-75 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest on purchase tax loan for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,75,277 did not belong to the assessee and that it was not a trading receipt for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75?" So far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, learned counsel for the assessee submits that they are covered in his favour by the deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged by the sugar mills was that the Government have no power to fix the price in respect of the levy sugar and they should be permitted to sell the sugar at the rates existing prior to the introduction of the control order. The assessee in this case had also filed a similar writ petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court admitted the writ petition and passed conditional order that the assessee may collect the price of sugar at the rates existing prior to the introduction of the control order, but that the difference in price collected should be deposited in a separate account, or a bank guarantee of an equal amount should be furnished to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in respect of the excess collection made. It is not denied that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund the amount to the constituents entitles the assessee to claim by way of deduction the sum of Rs. 8,75,277 as business expenditure following the mercantile system of accounting employed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer declined to accept the above contentions of the assessee and treated the sum of Rs. 8,75,277 as the assessee's income, constituting a trading receipt. Aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee was clearly governed by the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976, under which there was an obligation to pay the money to the constituents if eventually the price fixed by the control order was upheld. The Appellate Assista....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... acknowledgement clearly impressed the same with the character of the liability which should be deducted even if the amount is treated as a trading receipt. According to the learned counsel, the trading receipt and the corresponding liability offset each other with the result that no part of the sum of Rs. 8,76,277 falls to be included in the total income of the assessee. We consider that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the amount of Rs. 8,76,277 did not partake of the nature of a trading receipt and on that ground itself the amount fell to be excluded from the total income of the assessee. It may be pointed out that the right to collect the amount in excess of the price fixed by the control order was saddled with the obl....