9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, has referred to following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for opinion of this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of interest on excess levy sugar price ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the accounting period relevant to assessment year 1987-88, the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 38,61,101 being the interest payable @ 15 per cent of the amounts realised in excess of the levy price fixed by the Government. Deduction for the amount was claimed on the ground that as a result of coming into force of the levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund (Amendment) Act, 1984, the interest was payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his basis, the CIT(A) allowed a relief of Rs. 32,19,832 to the assessee. 3. Against the CIT(A)'s above decision, the department filed appeal before the Tribunal which, following its earlier orders for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87, has directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the excess collections have been credited to the Equalisation Fund before the commencement of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal, who has upheld the order of appellate authority. Tribunal held as follows : "The second ground of appeal is relating to the addition of Rs. 95,386 on account of interest on additional cane price. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition under mistaken notion that the issue was covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. It has fairly been conceded by the learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee. 6. Learned standing counsel submitted that both the aforesaid questions are covered by the decisions of this Court inter-party - CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 1) [2005] 274 ITR 340 1 and CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 2) [2005] 274 ITR 370 relating to the earlier years. 7. Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
