9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Delhi Bench 'B'. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing deduction of the additional sales tax liability of ₹ 2,58,032 as per the sales tax order dated 12-3-1962 even though the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, 1962, he filed copies of sales tax orders one under rule 41(5) and the other under rule 51(5) read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales tax Act both dated 11th March, 1962, he pointed out that as per the order under rule 51(9), an additional demand of ₹ 66,964 was raised and by the second order an additional demand of ₹ 1,91,068 was similarly raised. In view of this, he reduced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which was admittedly settled after a dispute by the orders of the U.P. Government (Labour Department) dated May 1, 1962 as referred to by the AAC in para 10 of his order. The AAC has disallowed this claim on the ground that the date of order fell after the date of dissolution of the partnership and the liabilities unitwise had been taken by the erstwhile partners with effect from 13-12-1961, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly under the U.P. Government (Labour Department) order dated 1st May, 1962. Accordingly, we allow this contention." 5. Issue similar to one involved in the first question has come up for consideration of various High Courts and the Apex Court. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 , the question has to be answered in favour of the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
