9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves three main Issues: 1. Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on certain expenses capitalized in earlier years. 2. Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 91 of the Income-tax Act in respect of dividends from the United Kingdom. 3. Whether a specific sum could be allowed as a deduction in the assessment year 1965-66. Issue 1 - Depreciation on Capitalized Expenses: The court agreed that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on certain expenses based on relevant judgments without further elaboration. Issue 2 - Relief under Section 91: The court also agreed that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 91 based on applicable Supreme Court judgment without elaboration. Issue 3 - Excise Duty Deduction: The case involved excise duty on carbon dioxide used in manufacturing soda ash. The Central Government exempted part of the excise duty, and the Supreme Court later quashed the demand notices served on the assessee. The assessee collected excise duty from purchasers but did not pay it pending the writ petition. The sums collected were later credited as income and taxed. The Income-tax Officer included these sums in the assessable income, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed deduction for one of the years. The Tribunal upheld the deduction, stating that the liability existed until quashed by the Supreme Court. The court referenced relevant judgments to support the deduction, concluding that the sum was rightly allowed as a deduction. In summary, the court answered all three questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, directing the Revenue to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
