C.I.T. versus D.S.M.LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

C.I.T. v. D.S.M.Ltd. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 86 of 1992 [2005] RD-AH 475 (22 February 2005)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.37

Income Tax Reference No. 86 of 1992

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

Versus

M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited Bijnor

Hon'ble R.K.Agarwal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred following two questions of law under section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( here in after referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:

"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in Law, justified in deleting the disallowance of interest on excess levy sugar price amounting to Rs. 26,49,900/-?"

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,96,.000/- out of payment of interest as an interest was charged by the assessee company on the advance given to subsidiaries viz. M/s Dhampur Yeast Company U.P. Straw Board and Agra Products Limited?

The reference relates to the assessment year 1982- 83..

Heard Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Sri R.R.Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee.

So far as the first question is concerned we find that this Court in I.T.R.No.166 of 1985 decided on 21-9-2004 which is inter parties  had answered the similar question in favour of the assessee. We may make it clear that from the order of the assessing authority as also the Tribunal it is not clear as to whether the amount of interest claimed had accrued during the previous year relevant to  the assessment year in question or whether it related to the liability of interest of earlier years also. It is made clear that only  that amount of interest which accrued during the previous year in question is liable to be allowed. So far as second question is concerned we find that this Court in I.T.R.No.196 of 1985 decided on 30-9-2004 which is inter parties had answered the similar question in favour of the assessee.

      Respectfully following the aforementioned decision we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,96,000/- out of the payment of interest. We accordingly answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt: 22-02-2005

IA

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.