1992 PLP 828 (PTD)
BANARAS STATE BANK Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
| Citation | 1992 PLP 828 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. and R.A. Sharma, J |
| Parties | BANARAS STATE BANK Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 828 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 828 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. and R.A. Sharma, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 828 (PTD) (BANARAS STATE BANK Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Time when liability for bonus arose
Question of law. Held, that the question whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that accrual of liability for bonus of Rs.6 lakhs arose after the accounting year was a question of law. State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) ref. Upadhyaya for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.
By this application, the assessee is asking the following four questions to be referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that accrual of liability of bonus of Rs.6 lakhs arose after the accounting period?
2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that there was real income on sticky accounts on which no interest was charged?
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering and accepting the bona fide change in system of accounting from the mercantile to cash system on sticky accounts and charging interest on these accounts?
4. Whether, on accounts whose operation was closed for more than three years, in view of the circular of September 1984, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in charging interest and not accepting the bona fide change of accounting from mercantile to cash on these accounts?" Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upadhyaya, stated fairly that so far as questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, they are concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR
102. Accordingly, the said questions cannot be referred. So far as question No.1 is concerned, we are inclined to hold that it arises from the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, question No.1 alone shall be stated by the Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Income-tax application is, accordingly, allowed in part. M.BA./1543/T Application partly allowed.