9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The assessee is a firm carrying on business of purchase and sale of fertilisers at Kanpur. During the year under consideration, the distribution of fertilisers was controlled by the State Government and the assessee could charge the sale price as fixed by the U.P. Government from time to time. With effect from June 14, 1974, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance through which the fertiliser dealers were required to sell their stocks as on May 31, 1974, at the old rates. The fertiliser dealers challenged this order of the U.P. Government but the High Court upheld it. The dealers then went to the Supreme Court which by an interim order allowed the dealers to sell the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case being identical with those in the case of Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath, Sultanpur, and following its earlier decision dated March 26, 1977, in that case dismissed the defendant's appeal. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. At the outset it may be mentioned here that the matter in this case of Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath, Sultanpur, came up for consideration of this court in the reference filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. This court has held that the amount realised and deposited by the fertiliser dealer with the district magistrate did not accrue in that year and could not be taxed. The said decision is reported in CIT v. Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyed therein, would not make any difference in the nature of receipts by the assessee. It distinguished the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 113 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chodavaram Co-operative Sugars Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 420 on the ground that from the facts stated by the High Court that in each case the assessee has the right to realise the excess price was the subject matter of dispute pending in the High Court and the High Court has passed different interim orders pursuant to which respective assessees were collecting the excess price and though the interim orders of the High Court differently worded phrases, one common view of all the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
