Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, New Delhi on 25 October, 1971

Balrampur Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 February, 1981

4. We need not in detail discuss the several authorities, to some of which our attention was drawn, which have been referred by the Tribunal. The point came up before the Supreme Court in appeal from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1972] 85 ITR 320 and the decision of the Supreme Court is (Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT). There, the. Supreme Court analysed the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, and was of the view that the interest was paid by the assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar, under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, on arrears of cess payable on the entry of cane into the premises of a factory for use either for consumption or sale thereof. The Tribunal in that case had held that interest on the arrears of cess constituted a permissible deduction but the High Court on a reference, inter alia, held that the interest did not fall within the scope of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as it was applicable in that year, because it was paid by way of penalty for an infringement of the Cess Act. There was an appeal preferred by the assessee before the Supreme Court. The revenue did not dispute that the payment of cess represented expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and that it was in the nature of revenue expenditure. It was held by the Supreme Court reversing the decision of the Delhi High Court that the interest paid under Section 3(3) of the Cess Act was not a penalty paid for an infringement of law and was an allowable deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The Supreme Court was of the view that the interest payable on arrear of cess under Section 3(3) was in reality a part and parcel of the liability to pay tax. It was an accretion to the cess. The arrear of cess carried interest. If the cess was not paid within a prescribed period, a larger sum became pay-
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Indian Acrylics Ltd.,, Chandigarh vs Assessee on 25 May, 2009

58 The above clearly shows that adjustment to be made u/s 145A is to be made both in respect of opening stock as well as closing stock. The same view has been taken even by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Glass W orks P. Ltd (supra). Following these decisions, we set aside the order of Ld. 19 CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adjust the value of opening as well as closing stock and only the net difference should be added to the income of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamlapat Motilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 May, 1975

8. The case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, [1972] 85 ITR 320 (Delhi) is a case directly dealing with the point arising in the instant case. There also the question arose as to whether interest paid under Section 3(3) of the Cess Act was allowable deduction. The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction was not permissible. With respect we are unable to agree with the learned judges of the Delhi High Court. The distinction between interest and penalty as has been pointed out by us was not brought to the notice of the learned judges of the Delhi High Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) on 6 April, 1978

10. The learned counsel for the revenue relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1972] 85 ITR 320. It was held therein that, as the penal interest was paid by the assessee as penalty for omission on the part of the assessee to deposit the cess in time, the amount could not be treated as a legitimate business expense either under Section 10(1) or under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was further held that the interest paid by the assessee could not be deducted under Section 10(2)(iii) as no capital was borrowed by the assessee and no relationship of creditor and debtor came into existence whereby the assessee undertook to pay interest to the creditor.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lakshmi Narayan Gouri Shankar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 1974

They are Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd., [1972] 85 ITR 320 (Delhi) and Commissioner oj Income-tax v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., [1972] 85 ITR 489 (Delhi). The latter case has, in its turn, referred to, and relied upon, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Aziz; but in both these cases two Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court have held that penal interest paid by the assessee-sugar mills, as penalty for omission on its part to deposit cess in time, was not a legitimate business expense either under Section 10(1) or under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I think, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee for a relief either under Section 10(1) or Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 May, 1984

7. The second question is common to all the three assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The same question also arose in respect of the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Tribunal in these earlier years has allowed interest paid by the assessed on the arrears of sugarcane cess. On a reference, however, this court held that it was not so and answered the question in favor of the Department. The decision of the Delhi High Court is CIT v. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1972] 85 ITR 320. Relying, on this decision, the Tribunal, in the instant case, held that the interest paid by the assessed for the non-payment in time of the sugarcane cess and purchase tax payable by the assessed could not be treated as deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessed. Accordingly, at the instance of the assessed, question No. 2 has been referred for decision. It is unnecessary to detail the facts which are the same as in the earlier years.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, ... vs Addl Cit Rg 8(2), Mumbai on 30 November, 2016

Similar view was ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs New Morrisson Sugar 63 M/s. Mumbai International Airport Mills Ltd 269 ITR 397 (SC) and CIT vs Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 269 ITR 398 (SC) wherein it was held that the amount set apart towards molasses reserve fund constituted diversion of income by overriding title, and therefore, it was held to be excludible from assessee's total income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, ... vs Addl Cit 8(2), Mumbai on 13 November, 2017

It was held that there was diversion of title at the source of the income collected under the directions given under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order. The sum in question was held to be not includible in the assessee's total income. 14.43. Similar view was ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs New Morrisson Sugar Mills Ltd 269 ITR 397 (SC) and CIT vs Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 269 ITR 398 (SC) wherein it was held that the amount set apart towards molasses reserve fund constituted diversion of income by overriding title, and therefore, it was held to be excludible from assessee's total income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 58 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next