9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (4) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - No disallownace can be made on this ground - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 132 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2013 - Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra And Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok Kumar, Bharatji Agarwal For the Respondent : R. S. Agarwal, A. Bansal, S. K. Garg ORDER The present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Department against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No.554/Alld/95 for the assessment year 1991-92. The Department has proposed the following three substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess levey price and upholding the order of the CIT(A) that it was an ascertained liability? 2) If the answer to the question No.1 above is in the affirmative, whether such liability accrued during the years relevant to the years under consideration and was allowable as such ? The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86. Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:- The respondent-assessee is a company. It's accounting period for the assessment year 1984-85 ended on 30th September, 1983 and that for the assesment year 1985. In respect of both the years, the assessee had claimed deduction on account of interest on excess levy price as below:- Assessment Year Amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ampur in favour of the assessee. On reproduction, the same reads as under:- "The assessee has further claimed the deduction of Rs.95,380/- on account of the interest claimed to be payable on additional cane price, which was disallowed on the ground that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on this issue, the liability to pay the interest will arise only when the assessee fails in its appeal. Till such time it was a contingent liability. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT (A) felt that this issue was also covered by the earlier decision of the ITAT in assessee favour. And accordingly, deleted the addition. The department took the matter before the Tribunal, who has upheld the order appellate authority. Tribunal held as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
