Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 8 in The Pepsu General Clauses Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... vs Chuni Lal Rameshwar Lal. on 23 January, 1968
In CIT v. Chuni Lal v. Mehta & Sons P. Ltd. , the assessed was the managing agent of a company. Under the agreement of managing agency, the assessed was to continue as managing agent for 21 years. It was a term of the agreement that if the assessed was deprived of the managing agency, except on certain grounds mentioned in the agreement, it would be entitled to receive as compensation or liquidated damages certain amounts specified in the agreement. The managing agency agreement was entered into in 1951 the appointment of the assessed as managing agent was terminated. There was a dispute regarding the amount of compensation. The managed company wanted to pay a certain sum as per the agreement but the assessed wanted something more because of the alleged unlawful termination of the agreement. After four years of litigation, the court in 1955 awarded the amount which was offered by the managed company under the agreement. A question arose as to whether the amount of compensation accrued to the assessed in 1951 or in 1955. The Supreme Court held that the assessed was entitled to a definite sum as liquidated damages under the agreement and that the same became due to the assessed in 1951, though it was actually received in 1955. The fact that the assessed was claiming an exorbitant sum to which it was not entitled, did not convert its right into a contingent right. Thus, the assessed's right to get the compensation arose in 1951 and, therefore, it was held that the compensation amount was not taxable in the assessment year 1956-57 even though the assessed actually received the amount in 1955. The fact that the assessed had included the receipt in question in the profit and loss account in 1955 was held to be a wholly immaterial circumstance. The Supreme Court observed that the method of maintenance of accounts was one thing and actual entries in the account books maintained was a different thing. What was relevant was the method of accountancy and not the actual entries.
The Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New ... on 5 April, 1982
We find support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Balrampur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 227 and a full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732, decided on October 6, 1983. Thus, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and against the Department.
Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 August, 1979
On the other hand, it was contended by the Department before the Tribunal that this expenditure was of the same nature as interest paid by the assessed on the arrears of sugarcane cess and purchase tax. It may at once be seen that the payment of demurrage was not in the nature of damage or penalty amount and that it was merely a charge made by the Railway administration to compensate itself for keeping the goods of the assessed in its custody beyond a particular time. The payment of demurrage was incidental to business and its impact was to increase the cost to the assessed of the goods transported. Shri S. N. Kumar, learned counsel for the assessed, referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 269. In this case, the port authorities charged demurrage for delay in clearing the goods from the godowns of the port authorities which included charges for storage and safe custody of the good by the port authorities. It was held that when demurrage is paid by a trader, he pays the amount for storage and safe custody of the goods by the port authorities or the railways and also an additional amount for delayed clearance and the payment essentially is by way of liquidated damages for use of the port facilities beyond the period allowed under the port Rules. It was held that the demurrage paid was not a fine for infraction of any law but was by way of compensation for use of port facilities beyond the period allowed under the Port Trust Rules, and that the expenditure on this account was laid out wholly and exclusively for the assessed's business. We would follow the reasoning adopted by the Allahabad High Court in this judgment. We thus answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the assessed and hold that the assessed is entitled to deduction of sums of Rs. 5,030 and Rs. 1,244, respectively, for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 paid by it by way of demurrage to the Railways in the computation of its business income for the assessment years in question.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
In Sassoon & Co. Ltd.'s case , it was held by the Supreme Court that income accrued at the time when a right to receive income arose to the assessed and the accrual was not held in abeyance merely because the quantification was postponed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-Ii vs Deoki Nandan & Sons on 5 May, 1982
In CIT v. Deoki Nandan & Sons [1982] 138 ITR 225, this court held with reference to the amount of interest payable on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the assessed's right to receive interest there under accrued to him day to day throughout the years from the date of taking over possession of the land by the Collector till the payment of compensation. It was held that the Government was obliged to pay interest and the assessed acquired a right to receive it and it was a debt owed by the Government, its liability to pay was certain, although the amount was yet to be quantified. The Tribunal may, thus, be not right when it reached the conclusion that compensation accrued to the assessed in the assessment year 1955-56. But, this question is not before us in these terms. The Government became liable to pay compensation immediately it took possession if the requisitioned properties from the assessed. It was to be a recurring payment spread over four years during which the property remained in the possession of the Government. Thus, on the requisitioning of the property, it was only the amount which remained to be ascertained when there was a dispute in regard to the amount of rent and which could be ascertained correctly only by an award which was also appealable under the Pepsu Act. This, however, did not postpone the accrual of the compensation in favor of the assessed.
Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971
In Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363, the Supreme Court held that the liability to pay sales tax accrued on the basis of the statute and the existence of a dispute regarding the liability could not postpone the same. In the instant case, a liability to pay compensation on the part of the Government had accrued immediately on taking over the possession of the requisitioned property and correspondingly there accrued a right of the assessed to receive compensation.
Morvi Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 5 October, 1971
In Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835, the Supreme Court held that the income accrued when it became due. The postponement of the date of payment did not affect the accrual of income. The fact that the amount of income is not subsequently received by the assessed would not also detract from or efface the accrual of income although non-receipt may, in appropriate cases, be a valid ground for claiming deductions.