Scribd
Upload
261 views6 pages

Presentation On The Case L.B Sugar Factory & Oil Mills V. C.I.T U.P"

This case discusses an appeal by L.B. Sugar Factory regarding tax deductions claimed for contributions made to the state of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant contributed Rs. 22,332 locally and Rs. 50,000 to a sugar development scheme. The tax authorities disallowed the deductions. The key issues were whether the contributions qualified as business expenses and if they were capital or revenue expenditures. The judgment cited a previous similar case and partially allowed the appeal, ruling that each party should bear their own costs.

Uploaded by

zaiba rehman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
261 views6 pages

Presentation On The Case L.B Sugar Factory & Oil Mills V. C.I.T U.P"

This case discusses an appeal by L.B. Sugar Factory regarding tax deductions claimed for contributions made to the state of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant contributed Rs. 22,332 locally and Rs. 50,000 to a sugar development scheme. The tax authorities disallowed the deductions. The key issues were whether the contributions qualified as business expenses and if they were capital or revenue expenditures. The judgment cited a previous similar case and partially allowed the appeal, ruling that each party should bear their own costs.

Uploaded by

zaiba rehman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

PRESENTATION ON THE

CASE
L.B SUGAR FACTORY &
OIL MILLS V. C.I.T U.P

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
PROF. AVIJIT FAUJDAR ZAIBA REHMAN
FACTS OF CASE
Appellant carrying business of manufacturing and sale of sugar
in sugar factory.
Contributes the sum of Rs. 22,332 on request of the collector.
Also contributes a sum of Rs. 50,000 to state of U.P under
sugar Development Scheme promoted by the U.P.
Assesse claimed both his amount to deduct as deductible
expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of Income tax act.
Income tax officer disallowed the claim.
The assesse filed an appeal to the appellate assistant
commissioner but that appeal failed.
WHAT HAPPENED PROCEDURALLY
Appeal was heard by two members with different opinions
1. Judicial Member
2. Accountant Member
3. III member
Assesse sought a reference to High Court
Two question arise for consideration in the present appeal.
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 22,332 and Rs. 50,000 contributed
by the assesse represented expenditure incurred wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of the business of assesse.
2. Whether this expenditure was in the nature of capital or
revenue expenditure.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
The issue in this appeal by certificates relates to
two items of expenditure incurred by the assesse
during the assessment year 1956-57, for which
the relevant accounting year was the year ending
on 30th September, 1955. The assesse claimed to
deduct these two amounts of Rs. 22,332 and
50,000 as deductible expenditure under section
10(2)(xv) of the Indian income tax Act, 1922.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of this case is the decision of the
case Lakshmi Sugar Mills case and hold on the
analogy of that decision that the amount
Since the assessee has partly won and partly lost,
so the fair order of cost would be that each party
should bear and pays its own costs throughout.
CONCLUSION

If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the


assessees business operation or enabling the
management and conduct of the assessees
business to be carried on more profitably while
leaving the fixed capital untouched, the
expenditure would be on revenue account, even
though the advantage may endure for an
indefinite future.

You might also like