1992 PLP 869 (PTD)
PURAN SUGAR WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 1992 PLP 869 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. and RA. Sharma, J |
| Parties | PURAN SUGAR WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 869 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 869 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. and RA. Sharma, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 869 (PTD) (PURAN SUGAR WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Accounting
No finding in assessment order that S 145(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 was applicable or taken as a ground in appeal filed before Tribunal
Section 145(2) whether applicable
Day to day stock records for each stage of production not maintained
Section 145(2) whether applicable
Questions of law: Held. (i) that the question whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were applicable even though no such finding had been recorded in the assessment order nor was any such ground taken in the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Revenue was a question of law; (ii) that, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that, in -the absence of maintenance of day to day stock records for each stage of production, the books of account were liable to be rejected and the provisions of section 145(2) were to be applied was a question of law. Vikram Gulati for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.
Having heard counsel for both the parties, we direct the Tribunal to state the following two questions, namely, questions No.l and 2, out of the questions suggested by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted to the facts of the case, even though no such finding had been recorded in the assessment order, nor was any such ground taken in the appeal fled by the Revenue before the Tribunal? (2) Without prejudice to the above and, in the alternative, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in the absence of maintenance of day-to-day stock records for each stage of production, the books of account were liable to be rejected and the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act were to be applied?" It is agreed by the assessee's counsel that questions Nos.3 to 7 were merely argumentative and that it is enough if questions Nos.1 and 2 are referred. The income-tax appeal is allowed in part and the Tribunal is directed to state the abovementioned two questions. M.B.A./1537/T Order accordingly.