Commissionr of Income Tax v. M/S Dxn Herbal Manufacturing
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against ITAT order allowing deduction for excise duty paid in advance under protest shown as loan. High Court held that actual payment satisfies Sections 37 and 43B despite accounting treatment.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.9.2015
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
T.C.A.No.730 of 2015
Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.DXN Herbal Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mannadipet, Pondicherry. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 5.12.2014 in I.T.A.No.526/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII, Chennai - 34, dated 27.12.2012 and made in ITA No. 317/2011-2012, against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry, dated 16.12.2011 and made in PAN/G.I. No.AABCD4141M/D-16.
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether duty paid in advance under protest and treated as loan without debiting in profit and loss account is allowable as deduction under Sections 37 and 43B.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry
- respondent
M/s. DXN Herbal Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Coram
V. Ramasubramanian
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court