TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prasad, Kanpur, is the assessee. The assessment year is 1960-61. The previous year ended on October 30, 1959. The assessee firm carried on forward business in several commodities. At one time it was believed that sales tax was leviable on forward contracts. Upon that belief, the assessee-firm collected sales tax from its constituents on forward contracts, and subsequently deposited the amount so collected into the Treasury. Subsequently, there was a decision of the High Court to the effect that no sales tax was leviable on forward contracts. The State Government, therefore, refunded an amount of Rs. 13,272.37 on account of sales tax unnecessarily deposited by the assessee-firm. When the Income-tax Officer took up the assessment for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere for the purpose of computing profits or gains under this section, an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of any loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee and, subsequently during any previous year, the assessee has received, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or has obtained some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount received by him or the value of the benefit accruing to him shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business, profession or vocation and to have accrued or arisen during that previous year." Mr. K. M. Dayal, appearing for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. The Tribunal stated that the amount previously deposited by the assessee in the Treasury was claimed by the assessee as a deduction in computing its business income under section 10 of the Act, and the claim for deduction was allowed in former years. This position was not disputed by Mr. K. M. Dayal. Thus, the first part of sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Act is satisfied in the instant case. Admittedly, the assessee received the sum of Rs. 13,272.37 from the State Government by way of refund. So, the latter part of sub-section (2A) of section 10 is also satisfied. It may be that the amount so received by the assessee is not income in the strict sense. But, we may point out that und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
