Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 1734 1981 SLD 1734 (1981) 130 ITR 421
Delhi High Court
IT REFERENCE Nos. 9 AND 31 OF 1969 MAY 27, 1977
T.V.R. TATACHARI, C.J. AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.
Bishamberlal and S.K. Gupta for the Applicant.T.A. Ramachandran and Shankar Vaidyalingam for the
Respondent

Raza Sugar Co. Ltd.v.Commissioner of IncomE taxIT REFERENCE NOS. 9 AND 31 OF 1969

Law:

Section:

I. Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1952-53 - Sale price of sugar was shown by assessee company at price lesser than that at which it was purchased by its selling agents - ITO concluded that difference in price, which was termed as 'on money', went to assessee and, therefore, made additions - Tribunal upheld addition on findings that selling agents were managed and controlled by assessee, that ITO had added only part of difference in prices and that statements were made before ITO that 'on money' was to be paid to assessee - Whether finding of Tribunal was one of fact and, therefore addition made was justified - Held, yes II. Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax act, 1922], read with rule 8 of Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 - Depreciation - Extra-shift allowance - Assessment year 1952-53 - Whether assessee company, factories of which worked triple shifts during season, was entitled to triple-shift depreciation allowance only proportionately for actual number of days factories worked - Held, yes FACTS I. The assessee company carried on the business of manufacture of sugar and sale thereof. During the accounting year relevant to assessment year in question, the Government of India controlled the sale of sugar and some sugar bags were released to be sold as free sale quota by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the ITO found that the full sale price of the sugar had not been recorded in the accounts of the assessee. After examining certain transactions, he refused to accept the explanation of the assessee that the sugar was sold through their sole selling agent, and that so far as the assessee-companies were concerned, the price realised was shown correctly in the books. He found that the sole selling agent was a private limited company, which was controlled by the common managing agent of the assessee-companies, and that in certain instances the assessee-companies had issued sale memos at amounts between Rs. 60 and Rs. 61 per maund while actually, the sugar was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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