CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.

257 ITR 343Supreme Court of India2002#6138 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 28(iv)Section 37(1)Section 40A(7)Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(7)section 28(iv)section 41(1)section 41mercantile system of accountingadmission of additional evidencereasoned ordersection 44abcomplete scrutinyrule 46aspeaking ordersection 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.

JCIT(OSD), DELHI vs. AVON METERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 328/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

…e addition. We observe that the action of ld. CIT (A) in so doing is supported by the decisions of apex Court in the CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434 and Polyflex India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 343 (SC). Further we observe that the common Ground in all the cited cases has been that limitation by itself cannot bring the amount under the purview of Sec. 41(1) of the Act, the amount in question has to be released or admission of write off in favour of the assessee by the creditor, then alone it could be said that the liability for the repaymen…

AVON METERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5794/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

…e addition. We observe that the action of ld. CIT (A) in so doing is supported by the decisions of apex Court in the CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434 and Polyflex India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 343 (SC). Further we observe that the common Ground in all the cited cases has been that limitation by itself cannot bring the amount under the purview of Sec. 41(1) of the Act, the amount in question has to be released or admission of write off in favour of the assessee by the creditor, then alone it could be said that the liability for the repaymen…

DYNAMIC TRANSMISSION LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 328/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

…e addition. We observe that the action of ld. CIT (A) in so doing is supported by the decisions of apex Court in the CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Mills (1989) 236 ITR 518(SC), CIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434 and Polyflex India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 343 (SC). Further we observe that the common Ground in all the cited cases has been that limitation by itself cannot bring the amount under the purview of Sec. 41(1) of the Act, the amount in question has to be released or admission of write off in favour of the assessee by the creditor, then alone it could be said that the liability for the repaymen…

M/S. MARIKO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR 35,

ITA 1521/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 41(1)Section 80HSection 80I

…and the order of refund by the Sales Tax Authority was passed in the month of March, 1999 and income would be assessable in the A.Y. 1999-2000. 3.2) The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Polyflex India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 257 ITR 343 to uphold the addition made by the Ld. AO. 3 M/s. Marico Industries Ltd. 3.3) During the hearing proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, the appellant company has argued that though the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, his observations on the said Judgement would actually support the appellant’s case because it wa…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 816/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…d to deleted the addition of Rs.1,51,85,245/-“ 13. On going through the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2002) 257 ITR 343, the alleged sum could have been treated as income only if the assessee had claimed it as an allowance or deduction in respect any loss, expenditure or trading liability. However, in the instant case, the assessee had filed the complete details of VAT purchase, ledger account for the assessment years in challenge before us. A chart has also been…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. K KALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

ITA 815/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 815 & 816/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K Kalpana Industries India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kolkata 28, Pretoria Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabck2239D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 25/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days & 11 Days In Filing Of These Appeals By The Department For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. After Hearing The Ld. D/R We Are Convinced That It Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals On Time. Though The Department Has Not Filed Any Petition/Application For Condonation, The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Sesh Nath Singh & Ors. V. Baidyabati · Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 5

…d to deleted the addition of Rs.1,51,85,245/-“ 13. On going through the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2002) 257 ITR 343, the alleged sum could have been treated as income only if the assessee had claimed it as an allowance or deduction in respect any loss, expenditure or trading liability. However, in the instant case, the assessee had filed the complete details of VAT purchase, ledger account for the assessment years in challenge before us. A chart has also been…

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. GILCON SACPES JOINT VENTURE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 901/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle 2(1) M/S. Gilcon Sacpes Joint Bhopal Venture, Vs. Old Subhash Nagar, Bhopal Revenue) Respondent Pan: Aaaag 3559 M Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…oyed in fire has been allowed to the appellant as deduction in the earlier year and subsequently the appellant receives insurance compensation for such loss, the entire award is taxable. The Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 343/124 Taxman 374 has examined the constitution of section 41(1). The Court has pointed out that section 41(1) consists of two main ingredients: (a) loss or expenditure and (b) trading liability. The two ingredients of section 41(1) have to be read independently. As the first ingredient relates to loss or expenditure and the second ingredient relate…

FRICK INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…t was not necessary for the department to await the final order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In support of his aforesaid view, the AO, had, inter alia, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002)257 ITR 343 (SC) . Page 11 of 37 Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 12 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06 Accordingly, the AO backed by his aforesaid conviction made an addition of Rs. 1 crore in the hands of the assessee company. 5.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity of the view taken by the AO, uphe…

FRICK INDIA LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-11 (1),

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…t was not necessary for the department to await the final order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In support of his aforesaid view, the AO, had, inter alia, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002)257 ITR 343 (SC) . Page 11 of 37 Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi 12 ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 – A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06 Accordingly, the AO backed by his aforesaid conviction made an addition of Rs. 1 crore in the hands of the assessee company. 5.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity of the view taken by the AO, uphe…

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

ITR/70/2000HC Kerala01 Mar 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX
Section 143(1)(a)Section 201Section 256(1)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…rofits and gains of business or profession. Reference to the above propositions can be derived from the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1985) 154 ITR 751] and Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2002) 257 ITR 343]. I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:8:- 12. A glance at the history of Section 41 will reveal the purpose behind the enactment of this provision. Section 41(1) of the 1961 Act corresponds to Section 10(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act of 1922. In the decision in British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson (1932) 16 TC 570 (HL), it was held that once a l…

SHRI ASHISH HARIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2078/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 44A

…the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not." 7. The aforesaid section was elucidated and examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) P. Ltd.. v. C.I.T. (2002) 257 ITR 343 (SC). The Supreme Court in the said case observed that, section 41(1) of the Act consists two steps. Firstly, it has to be examined whether the assessee had claimed and allowed deduction in respect of any loss, expenditure or trading liability in any earlier year. This is the first step requires examination whether during the period relevant to t…

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Trans Freight R.No.609, 6Th Floor Containers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 72-73, Nariman Bhavan M.K.Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 41Section 41(1)Section 50C

…h liability ceased to exist. Thus, there is no liability on the assessee to pay such creditor. Hence, the same has been considered as deemed income u/s 41(1} of the Income Tax Act by placing the reliance on the decision of Polyflex India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT(2O02) 257 ITR 343{SC). Thus, an addition of Rs.7,52,781/- is made to the total income of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the ITAct,1961, thereafter applied provisions of Section 50C and made an addition of Rs.2,66,12,234/-. 4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing as under:- 5.1.1. Through this ground the appellant objected the AO’s action o…

THE ASST. CIT,, GUNTUR vs. SRI GRANDHI SUBBA RAO,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 239/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…in the year in which the matter is finally settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly offered to tax in the assessment year 2013-14. The Ld. PCIT placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Polyflex (I) Limited Vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 343 held that the excise duty refund pursuant to the decision of Cegat shall be subject to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act and possibility of refund being set at naught on the future date will not be relevant consideration. Accordingly, held that the central excise duty refund received by the assessee in the year under consideration is taxable receipt fo…

GRANDHI SUBBARAO,,GUNTUR vs. THE ADDL. CIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 223/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…in the year in which the matter is finally settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly offered to tax in the assessment year 2013-14. The Ld. PCIT placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Polyflex (I) Limited Vs. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 343 held that the excise duty refund pursuant to the decision of Cegat shall be subject to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act and possibility of refund being set at naught on the future date will not be relevant consideration. Accordingly, held that the central excise duty refund received by the assessee in the year under consideration is taxable receipt fo…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. S.L.LUMAX LTD., SRIPERAMBUDUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1578/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1578/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 28Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1578/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. S L Lumax Ltd, Income Tax, G-15, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle 6(2) Irrungattukkotai, Chennai 600 034 Sriperambadur 602 105. [PAN AAACL 1857B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A.V.…

CIT vs. ICC INDIA P. LTD

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms in terms

ITA/396/2012HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 28Section 41(1)

…provisions of section 41(1) of the IT Act conditions mentioned above should cumulatively exist and that too in respect of the trading liability. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India) (P) Ltd. (257 ITR 343). From the facts of the case it is clear that the assessee has never claimed any allowance or deduction in respect of the amounts transferred to the capital ITA 396/2012 Page 3 of 6 reserves from the loan account. Further, the facts also clearly show that the amounts outstanding in the loan account were on account of ca…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S BHARATPUR NUTRITIONAL PROD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 152 / 2005HC Delhi15 Mar 2012
Section 41(1)

…ITA No. 152/2005 Page 1 of 11 $~15. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 152/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. Versus M/S BHARATPUR NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. R.N. Mehta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S BHARATPUR NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/152/2005HC Delhi15 Mar 2012
Section 41(1)

…ITA No. 152/2005 Page 1 of 11 $~15. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 152/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. Versus M/S BHARATPUR NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. R.N. Mehta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV…

BHARAT CARPETS LTD. vs. C.I.T.

ITR/234/1983HC Delhi10 Mar 1998
Section 256

…elevant year was chargeable to tax, learned ITR 553 of 1983 page 1 of 4 counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the decision in Polyflex (India) Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] 257 ITR 343 (SC) this part of the question is required to be answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second part of the question is whether the liability to pay sales tax on the amount of Rs.1,01,507/- being provision for sales tax made in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 is ch…