Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 3 in U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The M.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961
Section 4 in The M.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Census Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills, New Delhi on 25 October, 1971
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-
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 387 as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT was of the view that so far as the interest under the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act was concerned, the finding and the directions of the Commissioner were very clear and he was justified in holding that the allowance of this claim by the ITO was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and he had, therefore, based his findings on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT as that decision was applicable to this case. The Tribunal was of the view that the view taken by the Commissioner was
legal and tenable and, therefore, according to the Tribunal, it did not call for any interference by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the assessee's contention on this aspect of the matter was rejected.
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi, New ... on 9 April, 1980
Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 387 as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT was of the view that so far as the interest under the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act was concerned, the finding and the directions of the Commissioner were very clear and he was justified in holding that the allowance of this claim by the ITO was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and he had, therefore, based his findings on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT as that decision was applicable to this case. The Tribunal was of the view that the view taken by the Commissioner was
legal and tenable and, therefore, according to the Tribunal, it did not call for any interference by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the assessee's contention on this aspect of the matter was rejected.