Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: INDO JAVA & CO.
Court Name: Delhi High Court Judge(s): R. C. Lahoti, J. K. Mehra Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs INDO JAVA & CO. Case No.: I.T.C. No,134 of 1992 Date of Judgment:1997-09-03 Reported As: 1999 PTD 3675 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' Hearing concluded. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ' Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 622. Having heard learned counsel we are of the opinion that question No, 1 framed on behalf of the Revenue is merely academic and no reference is called for thereon. However, questions Nos.2 to 5 are questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal which need to be answered by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions (questions Nos. 2 to 5 proposed by the petitioner) for the opinion of the High Court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessee suffered trading loss of goods worth Rs,15,53,504 when there is no evidence on record of title in goods (PVC) having passed to the assessee from Singapore exporter (Bentrex and Co.) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee disputing its liability to pay Rs,15,53,504 to Indian Overseas Bank in suit in the Delhi High Court, can still deduction of Rs,15,53,504 as a business loss? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest of Rs,1,42,369? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the deduction of interest of Rs, 1,42,369 even though it is not an accrued liability?"