9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Correct assessment year for taxing the sales tax refund. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether section 41(1) was applicable to the sales tax refund received by the assessee. The court examined the legal position regarding liabilities for sales tax dues and the accounting treatment of such liabilities. The court noted that under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, the sales tax collected by the assessee formed part of its trading receipts. This was supported by precedents such as *Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax* and *Sinclair Murray & Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax*. These cases established that sales tax collected, whether shown separately or not, formed part of the consideration for sales and thus part of the turnover. The court rejected the assessee's contention that since the sales tax was not shown in the accounts, it did not qualify for deduction under section 41(1). Instead, the court held that the correct legal position required the sales tax collected to be shown as trading receipts and the payments made to the government as deductions. The court concluded that the words "where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year" in section 41(1) should be read as "where an allowance or deduction ought to have been made." Thus, the court held that the provisions of section 41(1) were applicable to the sales tax refund received by the assessee. 2. Correct Assessment Year for Taxing the Sales Tax Refund: The second issue was determining the correct assessment year for taxing the sales tax refund. The court considered the fact that the assessee maintained its accounts on a mercantile basis, which means the date of accrual of the right to receive the amount was crucial, not the date of actual receipt. The court noted that the right to receive the refund crystallized only when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on January 20, 1964, confirming the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision. This decision fell within Samvat year 2020, corresponding to the assessment year 1965-66. The court emphasized that the refund was subject to a bank guarantee during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, and thus the right to receive the amount became final only with the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, the court held that the correct assessment year for bringing the refund to tax under section 41(1) was 1965-66. Conclusion: The court answered both questions in the affirmative: 1. The provisions of section 41(1) were correctly applied to the sales tax refund. 2. The income was rightly assessed to tax in the assessment year 1965-66, when the Supreme Court announced its decision. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
|
