2002 PLP 1117 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PUNJAB BONE MILLS
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1117 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 251 I T R 780 |
| Bench Members | S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal and Brijtsh Kumar, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PUNJAB BONE MILLS |
| Primary Law | (a) Income-tax, (b) Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1117 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income-tax, (b) Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1117 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 251 I T R 780 bench comprising: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal and Brijtsh Kumar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1117 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PUNJAB BONE MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
- Pratap Venugopal and K.J. Johin, Advocates for respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 18, 1997, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. Nos.36 of 1987, 37 of 1984, 99 of 1984 and 2 of 1991
Export markets development allowance
Weighted deduction-- Failure to mention specific clause under which Awed
Order not invalid
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.35B.
Accrual
Cash incentive for exports
Mercantile system of accounting
Right to receive incentive accrues when claim filed. From the decision of the High Court to the effect, inter alia, (i) that though the specific sub-clause of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not mentioned in the order, weighted deduction, on a proportionate basis, in respect of salaries, printing and stationery gratuity, electricity, postage and- telegrams and traveling expenses, could be allowed, and (ii) that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cash incentive for exports did not accrue immediately on the export but would accrue on the date of application filed by the assessee claiming cash incentive from the Government, appeals were taken by the Department to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding (i) that the first question was properly answered having regard to how that question was worded, and (ii) since the relevant material in regard to the question relating to cash incentive had not been placed before the Tribunal, it was not possible to decide that the contention of the Department that the cash incentive accrued immediately on the export was correct. CIT v. Punjab Bone Mills (1998)232 ITR 765 affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
Export markets development allowance
Weighted deduction-- Failure to mention specific clause under which Awed
Order not invalid
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.35B. (b) Income-tax
Accrual
Cash incentive for exports
Mercantile system of accounting
Right to receive incentive accrues when claim filed. From the decision of the High Court to the effect, inter alia, (i) that though the specific sub-clause of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not mentioned in the order, weighted deduction, on a proportionate basis, in respect of salaries, printing and stationery gratuity, electricity, postage and- telegrams and traveling expenses, could be allowed, and (ii) that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cash incentive for exports did not accrue immediately on the export but would accrue on the date of application filed by the assessee claiming cash incentive from the Government, appeals were taken by the Department to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding (i) that the first question was properly answered having regard to how that question was worded, and (ii) since the relevant material in regard to the question relating to cash incentive had not been placed before the Tribunal, it was not possible to decide that the contention of the Department that the cash incentive accrued immediately on the export was correct. CIT v. Punjab Bone Mills (1998)232 ITR 765 affirmed. Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. Pratap Venugopal and K.J. Johin, Advocates for respondent. No interference with the judgment and order of the High Court (see (1998) 232 ITR 795 (P & H) is called for. Having regard to the first question, considering how that question is worded, it is properly answered. As to the second question, the relevant material in regard to the cash incentive for exports does not appear to have been placed before the Tribunal. Without that material, it is not possible decide that the contention of the Revenue is correct. The civil appeals are dismissed with cost. M.B.A./1085/FC Appeals dismissed.