| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2390 2014 SLD 2390 (2014) 363 ITR 486 |
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL No. 41 OF 2000, FEBRUARY 7, 2014
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
C.S. Aggarwal, Prakash Kumar and Sheel Vardhan for the Appellant. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the
Respondent.
IT APPEAL No. 41 OF 2000, FEBRUARY 7, 2014
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
C.S. Aggarwal, Prakash Kumar and Sheel Vardhan for the Appellant. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the
Respondent.
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.v.Commissioner of INCOME TAX
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The present appeal has filed by the appellant under section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the order dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.2722/De1/91 relating to assessment year 1987-88. The order dated 16.09.1999 is hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'. 2. The impugned order is a common order whereby the Tribunal disposed of the appeals relating to the Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88 being ITA Nos. 2271/91 and 2272/91 respectively. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the assessee) for deduction of an amount equivalent to the additional custom duty which is disputed by the sellers (importers) and, consequently, not paid to the custom authorities. The appellant claimed that the additional custom duty demanded by the customs department was a part of the landed cost of the goods that were imported and as such was an ascertained trading liability which had accrued during the course of business. And therefore, the appellant was entitled to deduct the same from its trading revenue for the relevant Previous Year. The said deduction was disallowed as the additional customs duty (which was the statutory liability of the importers-sellers) was disputed by the importers and in terms of the contract between the appellant and the importers the same would be payable only when the custom authorities prevailed in the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and the importers were called upon to pay the said duty. 4. The Tribunal further disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for loss on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange in respect of an advance received by the assessee in foreign currency. The said advance was received by the assessee for export of certain goods and the same was to be adjusted from amounts receivable for supply of goods to be made over a period of five years. 5. This court by an order dated 22.05.2000 admitted the present appeal and framed the following questions of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492