9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls (P.) Ltd. (1993 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) has clearly held that no disallowance under section 37(1) can be made without examining the scheme of provisions of the relevant statute. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue also.- Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le apex court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that the revised claims are not allowable unless supported by the revised returns of income filed with the Department. 2. Similarly, whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is correct in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of some expenses as per ground Nos. 4 to 7 and 9, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), based on the audited accounts in view of the above mentioned explanation at point (1). 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is correct in allowing delay payment made to ESI based on the hon'ble apex court decision in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 429 (SC) but whereas in the case of Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 514 (SC) the hon'ble apex court has held that a payment made under statutory obligation because of the assessee's default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee, and hence not allowable. 4. Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest income was actually received. In the case of Morvi Industries Ltd., the hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of an assessee where the assessee-company being managing agent of its subsidiary company, maintained its accounts on the mercantile system and relinquished certain amounts representing fixed monthly sum allowances and commission on sale payable to the managed company, in view of heavy financial losses suffered by the managed company and the hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amounts of commission were relinquished after they had become "due" but before they were payable in terms of the managing agencies agreement and since the amounts of income for the years in question were given up unilaterally by the assessee after they had accrued to it, the assessee company could not escape the liability of tax liability for those amounts and since there was nothing to show that the amounts were relinquished on the basis of commercial expediency or for advancing the assessee's business interest, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of the said amount as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58) : "If the matter is examined in the light of the aforementioned prin ciples laid down by this court, it must be held that even though the assessee-company was following the mercantile system of accounting and had made entries in the books regarding enhanced charges for the supply made to the consumers, no real income had accrued to the assessee-company in respect of those enhanced charges in view of the fact that soon after the assessee-company decided to enhance the rates in 1963 representative suits (Civil Suit Nos. 152 of 1963 and 50 of 1964) were filed by the consumers which were decreed by the trial court and which decree was affirmed by the appellate court and the learned single judge of the High Court and it is only on December 3, 1968 that the letters patent appeals filed by the assessee-company were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the said suits were dismissed. But appeals were filed against the said judg ment by the consumers in this court and the same were dismissed by the judgment of this court dated February 26, 1969. Shortly thereafter, on March 19, 1969 the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat wrote a letter advising the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not prior thereto. We have, however, perused the judgment of the Joint Judge (Junior Division), Godhra dated June 20, 1974 in the said suit which was annexed as Annexure 'D' to the statement of the case. The said judgment does not show that the suit was confined to the period subsequent to March 31, 1969. On the other hand, it shows that the plaintiffs in that suit were challenging the enhancement in charges made in 1963 had sought a declaration that the assessee-company was not entitled to recover more than 31 paise per unit for lights and fans and 20 paise per unit for motive power and the trial court, while decreeing the said suit had given a declaration in these terms. The said declaration is not confined to the period subsequent to March 31, 1969. The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability or improb ability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter is considered in this light, it is not possible to hold that there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
