High CourtsDivision Bench(1981) 07 CAL CK 0058

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 22 July 1981 · Citation: (1982) 26 CTR 24 : (1982) 135 ITR 698 : (1982) 10 TAXMAN 189

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J · Sabyasachi Mukharji, J
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Reference No. 257 of 1976

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

24 paragraphs · 298 words

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.—It appears that in this reference in respect of the relevant year the profits of the company before payment of taxes as per the profit and loss account was Rs. 1,06,62,415. The income returned by the assessee was Rs. 1,06,80,025. The income assessed by the ITO as per the assessment order appearing in the paper book was Rs. 1,08,05,310. The taxes that were paid by the assessee for the year were Rs. 73,32,054. The month-wise break-up appears to be as follows :

Month Trading receipts deposited in the bank overdraft account as per assessment order Taxes paid from the bank over draft account as per assessment order

(1) (2) (3)

Rs. Rs.

November 1969 39,18,588 8,42,865

December 1969 29,56,976 14,52,504

January 1970 46,70,075 40,931

February 1970 67,68,610 6,991

1,49,282

3,62,506

June 1970 57,57,362 10,50,210

3,92,185

September 1970 41,04,825 19,49,895

10,75,662

October 1970 59,62,251

9,023

3,41,38,681

73,32,054

2.

In the background of these facts which will appear from the order of the ITO in the instant reference for the assessment year 1971-72, it appears to us that, in view of the principles enunciated by us in I.T. Ref. No. 438 of 1975 ( Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), ), the question referred to this court, which is as follows : -

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proportionate interest paid by the applicant on the amount utilised for payment of taxes out of the overdraft account is not an allowable deduction ?"

must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs.

Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.

4.

I agree.