Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Marikar (Motors) Ltd. on 24 October, 1980

D.R. Desai vs Thirteenth Income-Tax Officer on 26 August, 1993

47. Thus, a quick analysis of the cases relied on in support of the assessee's contention shows that most of them are of trading liabilities of past years having become either time-barred and having been written back to the credit side of the profit and loss account. Even on this aspect as already indicated, there are decisions available for and against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court itself has held against the assessee in the case of Batliboi and Co. P. Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 604 and in favour of the assessee in the case of Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 2) [1989] 177 ITR 128 (Bom). The point is that it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Then I have the Allahabad High Court decision in Indian Motor Transport Co. [1978] 114 ITR 677 which is against the assessee. I also have the Kerala High Court decision in CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1 followed in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 175 (Ker). Actually, the assessee's case stands on a different footing because it is a case of actual receipt of the refund rather than passing of any book entry to the credit side of the profit and loss account in respect of past years' liabilities. Then I have another category of decisions in which sales tax collected and Central excise duty collected is allowed as deduction in preceding years, and the amounts are received as refund on the basis of some High Court decisions. On this aspect, the decisions favourable to the assessee are those in which the dispute between the assessee and the Central excise or sales tax authorities had not been finally decided. In the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 864 (All), the Letters Patent Appeal against the single judge decision of the Delhi High Court had been preferred. Similarly, in the Tribunal's decision in the case of Indian Coffee and Tea Distributing Co. Ltd. [1987] 29 TTJ 275 (Bom), the refund was granted subject to the assessee filing a bank guarantee because the dispute between the assessee and the Central Excise Department had not been finally settled though the refund of the Central excise duty was received by the assessee. Therefore, on the basis of the information brought on record by the assessee, the said sum of Rs. 10,99,024 received by the assessee as refund on final settlement with the Central Excise Department cannot be treated as exempt from tax. I may further mention that there is no evidence brought on record by the assessee to show that even the sums of Rs. 72,795 and Rs. 54,478 were paid in Samvat years 2032 and 2033, respectively, under protest, The point is that the letter dated December 20, 1982, of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise talks of actual payments made under protest from May 2, 1979, to January 30, 1982, while Samvat years 2032 and 2033 ended much earlier on Diwali days of 1976 and 1977, respectively. These two amounts cannot be covered even by the other item of actual refund receipt of Rs. 74,371 ; obviously, because these Hems totalled much more-being Rs. 72,795 and Rs. 54,478 totalling Rs. 1,27,273.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abdul Majid Paramjit Singh vs Income-Tax Officer on 28 March, 1985

Subsequently, when the trading liability already granted deduction in the earlier years came to be remitted, it became assessable as deemed income under the provisions of Section 41(1). While we hold so, we have the support of the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat and Kerala High Courts, respectively, in Motilal Ambaidas v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 136, CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Maman Chand Ramji Das vs Income-Tax Officer on 3 August, 1988

12. Replying to the submissions, the Id. D.R., on the other hand, relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Taj Gas Service [1980] 122 ITR 1034 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1, contended that the authorities below were fully justified in bringing to tax under Sections 41(1) the disputed amount of Rs. 66,892 as the assessee had received the benefit in the earlier years by way of deduction of payment of excise duty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

B.P.L. India Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 15 December, 1994

Sri Abraham, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1. He then submitted that the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court did not impose any condition on the assessee to give any sort of undertaking to the Excise Department binding itself to refund the amount received from the excise department to the customers from whom excise duty was originally collected. The undertaking which the assessee gave to the excise department should be considered only a voluntary undertaking though it might be at the instance of the excise department. The assessee was not legally obliged to give any such undertaking before the refund was received. The assessee has not adduced evidence to show that there was any such condition for the refund to be made. Even assuming that the assessee had to give such undertaking on the instance of the Excise Department, it has not carried out its undertaking by refunding the amount to the customers even after the lapse of three years. What is worse is that the assessee has not taken any serious effort to refund the amount to the customers from whom it collected the duty. This allegation of the Assessing Officer remains un-controverted even at this stage of the proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) has distinguished the facts of the cases relied on by the assessee and in the light of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, no interference is called for with the order of the CIT (Appeals).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 October, 1995

In the aforesaid case also the view was taken after following the decision of the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1 (Ker.). In the latter case the payment of sales-tax had not been debited to the profit and loss account. The sales-tax amount collected by the assessee from the customers was credited to a separate account. On the facts it was held that the refund of sales-tax received in the accounting year was income of the year in which it was received.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.P. Udyog Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 December, 1987

In particular, he referred to the cases of Jagatnarain Durga Prasad (supra), Chandajee Khubajee & Co. (supra), Ikrahnandi Coal Co. (supra), Kabbur Bros, (supra), and Marikar (Motors) Ltd. (supra). He urged that none of those cases applied to the facts of the instant case and the learned Accountant Member erred in relying on those decisions to come to the conclusion against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 69 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Associated Trading Corpn. vs Ninth Income-Tax Officer on 15 February, 1991

With due respect to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Thirumalaiswamy Naidu & Sons (supra), we are inclined to follow the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Marikar (Motors) Ltd. (supra). We do not think that for applying the provisions of Section 41(1), a distinction is required to be made between a case where the assessee had recovered the amount of sales tax or excise duty from its customers and a case where he had not so done. We are of the view that in either case, the provisions of Section 41(1) will become applicable in the case of refund.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Thirumalaiswamy Naidu And Sons. on 22 November, 1982

26. The last case is of a decision of the Kerala High Court CIT v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 1. The narrative portion in the judgment in this case shows that the facts are more or less similar to the facts we have before us in the present case. There too, as in the present case, the assessee collected sales tax from its customers on certain dealings, but those collections were not credited to the profit and loss account, but only held in an account called "deposits against contingent liability". Likewise the payment by the assessee to the Sales Tax Department of the collections made from the customers was also not debited to the profit and loss account. In computation of its business income in the respective Tax Department as items of expenditure. Subsequently, the sales tax Department as items of expenditure. Subsequently, the sales tax Department refunded the sales tax paid in the earlier year. The question was whether s. 41(1) could invoked to tax the refund in the events that had happened. The question was discussed at some length by the Court, but it is clear that the assessee's objection to the application of s. 41(1) was not put forward by its learned counsel before the High Court on the basis of the undisputed fact that in the earlier years the assessee did not debit the sales tax payment, and had kept out of the trading and profit and loss account both the proceeds from the customers and the payment of sales tax to the Sales Tax Department and did not claim in the assessments to income-tax for the appropriate years any deduction respect of sales tax payment as an item of allowance. These facts, although crucial to the assesses case, and were, in fact, found to have been advanced on behalf of the assessee at the either stages of the proceedings, did not appear to have been addressed in the reference before the High Court. The decision of the Court, in that case was that sales tax refund was assessable as income under. s. 41(1) of the Act. The court, apparently, had no doubt about it. We, however, feel with respect, that the importance of the judgment is so much less because the court had not consider or examine a vital argument for the assessee which was as much available in that case it was availed of by the assessee in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next