1990 PLP 1113 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1113 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahbad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | V.K. Khanna and R.K. Gulati, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1113 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1113 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahbad High Court (India) bench comprising: V.K. Khanna and R.K. Gulati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1113 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Sum spent on Managing Director's house, whether deductible, is question of law fit for reference. (b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Income‑‑‑Excess price realised by assessee on sugar‑‑‑Whether revenue receipt is question of law fit for reference. C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (S C) applied.
Judgment & Decree
V.K. KHANNA, J.‑‑This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, be asked to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the four questions mentioned in paragraph 7 of the application for the opinion of this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that question No. (i) is covered by the decision of this Court dated December 9, 1987, given in ITA No. 60 of 1986, pertaining to the assessment year 1971‑72 between the same parties. As far as question No. (iii) is concerned the same is also covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR
60. As far as questions Nos. (ii) and (iv) are concerned, we are of the opinion that they are questions of law and do arise out of the Tribunal's order. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are thus of the opinion that the following questions of law arise out of the Tribunal's order: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 25,000 spent on the managing director's house was an allowable deduction by ignoring the material fact that these expenses never related to the assessee's business? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs.32,33,116 being the excess price realised by the assessee on sugar was not a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee‑company and, as such, not taxable in its hands?" We, accordingly, direct the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the questions of law indicated above for the opinion of this Court. The application is, thus, partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./739/T Order accordingly.