9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee contends that there was liability to refund and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the amount collected towards customs duty and sales tax in the years prior to the assessment year 1973-74 retained by the assessee pending final determination of the question as to whether the agricultural machinery and accessories manufactured by the assessee are subject to the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court holding against the assessee. In this case, it is not the claim of the assessee that the moneys have been collected pursuant to any order of the court or any statutory provision, which made that collection inseparable from the liability to refund. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the assessee that it had chosen to collect those amounts from its customers, but had maintaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perative Sugar Factory Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 321 (SC), observed thus: "In these cases it has been the consistent view of this court that if a receipt is a trading receipt the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as a trading receipt. It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern Explosives Co. [2000] 242 ITR 107, wherein it was observed thus : "The fact that the assessee had chosen to adopt the device of labelling a part of the amounts collected towards its sales tax liability as deposit cannot make a difference.... The receipt which was in its true character a trading receipt, cannot be rendered otherwise by the assessee labelling the receipt as a deposit." It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal's holding that the amount claimed as entertainment expenditure in a sum of Rs. 25,062 was allowable is required to be answered in the assessee's favour. The Explanation to section 37(2B), as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. [1995] 2 15 ITR 165, is not clarificatory and is operative only prospectively. That pro vision was not applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
