Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 238 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1980]123ITR598(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentL.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the payments of rs. 1,49,884 on account of guarantee commission and rs. 1,81,104 on account of commission paid on sales of sugar passed all the tests laid down in rule 3 of the 1st schedule to the super profits tax act, 1963 ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thetribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition totalling rs. 2,56,046representing disallowance of guarantee commission and commission paidon sale of sugar ' 2. from a perusal of the order of the tribunal, it appears that the figure of rs. 1,49,884 as payment of guarantee commission has been mentioned in question no. 1 due to some clerical error. as the dispute with regard to this item was only as respects rs. 74,942, the first question.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The Income-tax Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' B ') has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court;

'1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the payments of Rs. 1,49,884 on account of guarantee commission and Rs. 1,81,104 on account of commission paid on sales of sugar passed all the tests laid down in rule 3 of the 1st Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition totalling Rs. 2,56,046representing disallowance of guarantee commission and commission paidon sale of sugar '

2. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the figure of Rs. 1,49,884 as payment of guarantee commission has been mentioned in question No. 1 due to some clerical error. As the dispute with regard to this item was only as respects Rs. 74,942, the first question will accordingly stand amended to the extent that instead of Rs. 1,49,884 referred to therein, the amount of Rs. 74,942 shall stand substituted.

3. The reference arises out of an appeal under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and relates to the assessment year 1963-64. The order passed in this appeal was consequential to the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal of the assessee. The disallowance of these two items, viz., Rs. 1,81,104, on account of commission paid on sale of sugar, and Rs. 74,942 on account of guarantee commission, had been considered by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, and the matter has come up on reference to this court being I.T.R. No. 657 of 1974, This court held by its judgment dated December 1, 1978 (since reported as L. H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1979]118ITR985(All) , in favour of the assessee in respect of these two amounts. In view of that decision the questions referred must be answered in favour of the assessee.

4. Both the questions are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //