High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 07 DEL CK 0104

Jallo Subsidiary Industries Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi High Court · Decided on 23 July 2001 · Citation: (2001) 171 CTR 516 : (2002) 256 ITR 452 : (2001) 119 TAXMAN 344

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, C.J · D.K. Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Reference No. 9 of 1983

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 239 words

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—Heard.

2.

At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D" (in short "the Tribunal"), u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of excise duty at Rs. 93,879 arising out of the order of the Collector, Central Excise, made during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal arises and is allowable u/s 28/37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

3.

As the question itself indicates, the main issue related to accrual of liability and the fact that the Tribunal found that the accrual of liability was when the goods were removed from the factory, and not during the assessment year involved, i.e., 1973-74. The issue is no longer rest integra in view of the decision of the apex court in The Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Calcutta, . That being the position, the inevitable answer to the question is that the Tribunal''s view was correct and the liability did not arise out of the order of the Collector but on the date of removal of the goods from the factory. The question is answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assesses.

4.

The reference stands disposed of.