| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1887 1992 SLD 1887 (1992) 198 ITR 108 |
Karnataka High Court
S.P. BHARUCHA C.J. AND SHIVARAJ PATIL, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
S.P. BHARUCHA C.J. AND SHIVARAJ PATIL, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
B.V. Aswathiah and Brothers
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission of cessation of trading liability - Assessment year 1979-80 - During relevant previous year, assessee received certain amount as central excise duty refund - Said amount was not paid to customers even after two years, there was no agreement to make such refund and said amount was not shown in books of assessee - Whether on facts, amount in question was taxable in hands of assessee under section 41(1) - Held, yes FACTS During the previous year relevant to assessment year in question, the assessee received certain amount as central excise duty refund. The IAC brought that amount to tax. He stated that amount of refund was not paid to the customers even as, on that day up to 5-3-1982, there was no agreement to make such refund and that amount was not shown in the books or the profit and loss account as well. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the IAC. The Tribunal held that the central excise duty refund could be placed on the same footing for the purpose of tax as in the case of refund of sales tax and, thus, it confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). On reference: HELD In view of the clear legal position stated in CIT v. Kabbur Bros. [1981] 128 ITR 43 (Kar) and also in Motilal Ambaidas v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 136 (Guj), it was held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the central excise duty refund received by the assessee during the relevant previous year was taxable in the hands of the assessee. Note: The case was decided in favour of the revenue. CASES REFERRED TO: Motilal Ambaidas v CIT [1977] 108 ITR 136 (Guj), and CIT v Kabbur Bros [1981] 128 ITR 43 (Kar), CIT v Rashmi Trading [1976]103 ITR 312 (Guj), and CIT v Taj Gas Service [1980] 122 ITR 1034 (All). K.P. Kumar for the Applicant. H. Raghavendra Rao for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Shivaraj Patil, J.-This reference is under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The question that is referred to us is as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the central…
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