TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution charges in the taxable turnover and whether the machineries sold by the Sugar Mills/Units are liable to tax. The applicant contended that the distribution charges are not part of the taxable turnover and since the applicant was not carrying on the business of machineries it was not liable to tax. The claim of the applicant was rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 27.3.1987. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the applicant filed appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority. 4. Being aggrieved by the order, both applicant as well as revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. Both the appeals have been rejected by the Tribunal. In pursuance of the order of the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its own case, M/s Modi Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in STI 1988 445. The Tribunal held that during the year under consideration the applicant claimed deduction of ₹ 14,22,915/- towards freight and ₹ 44,05,988/- towards distribution charges. The Tribunal held that the contract was FOR destination and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S/s Hindustan Sugar Works vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1979 UPTC-21 such freight could not be deducted and was part of the turnover. The applicant is not raising any dispute in this regard. So far as the distribution charges are concerned, the Tribunal held that it was not a freight because the freight was separately shown. The Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act is comprehensive. It includes casual sales and the sales of the machinery, unserviceable goods, store goods, etc. Therefore, the plea of the applicant that since the Unit was not dealing car, machinery and furnitures thus these items were not liable to tax, cannot be accepted. So far as the claim for adjustment of ₹ 1,25,000/- and ₹ 1,50,000/- which has not been given, is not a matter to be adjudicated here. If the applicant has deposited the said amount, it is open to the applicant to move an application before the Assessing Authority along with the proof of deposit and there is no reason, in case if the amount is found to be deposited the credit/benefit may not be allowed by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
