Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J. and V. N. Mehrotra, J.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Appellant
Versus
H.R.SUGAR FACTORY - Respondents
Income-tax Reference 1023 Of 1978
Decided On : 11/13/1990
( 1 ) TWO questions are referred under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely :
" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the allowance of Rs. 1,59,501 by way of interest in the assessment year 1966-67 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the loss of Rs. 5,985 to the assessee on the sale of U. P. State Development Loan ?"
( 2 ) SO far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is brought to our notice that a Bench of this court has answered an identical question in the case of this very assessee in favour of the Department and against the assessee in CIT v. H. R. Sugar Factory P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363. Following the said decision, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i. e. , in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
( 3 ) SO far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is also concluded by a decision of this court in a similar matter, viz. , Income-tax Reference No. 862 of 1978, disposed of on August 20, 1990, cit v. S. B. Sugar Mills [1991] 187 ITR 441, following the decision of the Supreme Court in patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Department. No costs.
.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
