9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (2) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTExtract: ....... is required to be refunded to the customers, such amount will also be a deduction which the assessee can claim. In view of the above discussion and our answer to question No. 2B, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved: The judgment involves interpretation of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the taxability of refunded excise duty, application of the mercantile method of accounting, and the treatment of excise duty collected from customers.
Interpretation of Section 41(1): The case involved a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical domestic grinding machines. The company had collected excise duty from customers but later received a refund of Rs. 6,06,879. The Income-tax Officer initially held the entire amount taxable under section 41(1) as it had been recovered from customers and previously allowed as a deduction. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the duty was never claimed as a trading liability in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not treated the receipts as income and had not claimed deductions, thus holding that the provisions of section 41(1) were applicable. Mercantile Method of Accounting: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the mercantile method of accounting was cited, emphasizing that liabilities accrued due should be taken into account for tax assessment. The company had acknowledged the liability owed to customers for the excise duty refund by maintaining an account for "Excise duty refundable to customers retained as deposit against free services to be rendered." Treatment of Excise Duty: The Tribunal found that the company was liable to refund the excise duty to customers and had acknowledged this liability. The Tribunal held that the company was entitled to deductions for the refund amounts, rejecting the notion that Rs. 5 lakhs should be taxed as income. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the company had incurred the liability to refund the amounts and was entitled to the deductions claimed. Conclusion: The High Court answered the questions raised in favor of the assessee, holding that the excise duty collected formed part of trading receipts and that the refunded amount was deductible. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
