9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether the excess amount collected by the assessee-company, over and above the authorized price on the sale of sugar, should be considered as part of the trading receipt and hence taxable. Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal regarding the treatment of an amount of Rs. 14,96,130 collected by an assessee-company as the price of sugar, which exceeded the levy sugar price fixed by the Government. The company challenged the levy price in court, and the amount in dispute was allowed to be recovered subject to a bank guarantee. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as part of the trading receipt, but the Commissioner of Income-tax disagreed, leading to a series of appeals. The Tribunal, based on the argument that the excess collection was unauthorized, ruled in favor of the assessee. However, the High Court disagreed with this reasoning, citing precedents where similar collections were considered trading receipts. In analyzing the case law, the High Court highlighted the importance of the assessee's control over the collected amount. Cases such as Chowringhee Sales Bureau and Sinclair Murray and Company emphasized that even if the amount collected was later paid to the government or refunded, it still constituted a business receipt at the time of collection. The Court distinguished cases like CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., CIT v. Chodavaram Co-operative Sugars Ltd., and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., where the collected amounts were not fully under the assessee's control and thus not treated as trading receipts. The Court also addressed the argument that future liabilities should exempt the amount from being considered a trading receipt, citing Jonnalla Narasimharao and Co. v. CIT, where actual payment was required for deductions, not just a future liability. Ultimately, the High Court held that the excess amount collected by the assessee-company should be treated as a trading receipt in the relevant year and could be claimed as deductions when paid to the designated fund. The Tribunal's view was deemed erroneous, and the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue.
|
