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: MALAPRABHA COOPERATIVE SUGAR JUDGMENT
Court Name: Kerala High Court Judge(s): N. Venkatachala, K. Shivashankar Bhat Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MALAPRABHA COOPERATIVE SUGAR
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1993 PTD 1420 Result: Order accordingly Judgment JUDGMENT ' The common question which is required to be answered by us in these references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reads: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the excess collection realised towards levy sugar price does not represent part of the turnover of the assessee and there is no justification for inclusion of those amounts in the gross total income of the assessee?" ' It was submitted by learned counsel that similar question being the subject-matter of reference in CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (1990) 183 ITR 113 (Kar.) has been answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Hence following the said decision, we answer the question referred for our decision in these references in the affirmative and against the revenue.