2002 PLP 1681 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1681 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 242 I T R 456 |
| Bench Members | K.A. Thanikkachalam and K. P. Sivasubramaniam, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1681 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1681 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 242 I T R 456 bench comprising: K.A. Thanikkachalam and K. P. Sivasubramaniam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1681 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Sugar manufacture
Amount set apart for credit to molasses storage fund account
Not includible in income. The amount set apart for "molasses storage fund" is an allowable deduction. CIT v. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 285 (Mad.) fol. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
K.A. THANIKKACHALAM, J.
At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal: referred the following common question for the opinion of this Court for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount set apart for credit to the `molasses storage fund account' is an allowable deduction in the computation of income?" A similar case came up for consideration before this Court in CIT v. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 285, wherein this Court held that the amount set apart for "molasses storage fund" is an allowable deduction. Inasmuch as the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the above said decision of this Court, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. M.B.A./707/FC Reference answered.