High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Sir Sadi Lal Enter. Ltd. v. C.I.T. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 141 of 1992  RD-AH 846 (23 March 2005)
Income Tax Reference No.141 of 1992
M/s. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions of law under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:-
At the instance of the assessee applicant the following two questions have been referred:-
1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability for purchase-tax payable, but which was not fallen due for payment under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase-tax) Act, 1961, can not be allowed as an expenditure in spite of introduction of the explanation to Sec. 43 B by the Finance Act, 1987 on the ground that the amendment was not retrospective in its operation.?"
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the liability incurred by the assessee under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase-tax) Act, 1961, payment of which being linked with the dispatches of sugar & not payable upto the close of the year, can not be allowed as an expenditure under the provisions of Sec. 43 B despite the fact that no part of such liability could, in fact, be deemed as claimed as having been adjusted against remission allowed, in terms of Notification dated 24.8.84 and standing to the credit side of the Profit & Loss Account?"
However, at the instance of the Revenue following question has also been referred:-
"Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct to hold that the excess price realised on levy of sugar does not become part of trading receipt until the matter is finally decided in favour of the assessee?"
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-
Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee applicant to press this reference therefore the question referred at the instance of the applicant is being returned unanswered.
So far as the question referred at the instance of the Revenue, the controversy raised therein is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in ITR No.18 of 1993 CIT Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.Dhampur decided on 25.8.2004 wherein this Court has held that the excess levy sugar price was taxable in the hands of the assessee.
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we answer the questions No.1 and 2 referred to us in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.