Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Elgi Equipment Ltd.

Cit vs Elgi Equipment Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 10, 2001
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/829244

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number
TC Nos. 796 to 799 of 1988 10 December 2001 A.Y. 1981-82 to 1983-84
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue None, for the Assessee In the Madras High Court R. Jayasimha Babu & A.K. Rajan, JJ. - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 141; [A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kaliffulla &V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Reference to Larger Bench - Precedent - Full Bench decision Held, It is...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, <i>for the Revenue </i>None, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

Elgi Equipment Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)176CTR(Mad)305

Excerpt

counsels: mrs. chitra venkataraman, for the revenue none, for the assessee in the madras high court r. jayasimha babu & a.k. rajan, jj. - constitution of india article 141; [a.p. shah, c.j., f.m. ibrahim kaliffulla &v. ramasubramanian, jj] reference to larger bench - precedent - full bench decision held, it is binding on the division bench. only if the full bench comes to conclusion that earlier full bench decision is incorrect, there is scope for making reference to larger bench. division bench doubting correctness of full bench decision cannot direct registry for placing papers before chief justice to make reference to larger bench. .....as export cash assistance is concerned having been made bona fide and with a view to avoid genuine problems and there being nothing in the act which would come in the way of such change being effected with respect to one or more items with a view to better reflect the true position in the accounts, the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting that change in the method of accounting.4. the question referred to us at the instance of the revenue as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is right in law in accepting the change in the method of accounting made by the assessee-company from mercantile to cash system of accounting in respect of export incentives and in consequently sustaining the order of the commissioner (appeals) deleting the addition of rs. 21,766 in 1981-82 and of rs. 16,464 in 1982-83, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.5. the two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are :1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1-5-1981, as modified by the supplementary deed dated 27-9-1982 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, part of the interest on fixed deposits from the public was liable to be disallowed under section 40a(8) of the income tax act, 1961, in the two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-846. questions similar to these questions have been considered by this court in the case of l.g. balakrishna & bros. ltd. v. cit : [2000]245itr743(mad) and those questions were answered against the revenue. for the reasons stated in that judgment, these questions are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Full Judgment

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

One question has been referred to us at the instance of the revenue and two questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee. The assessment years are 1981-82 to 1983-84. The assessee is a manufacturer of air compressors, air horns, hydraulic lifts, car washers, etc. The assessee during the assessment year 1981-82 had changed its method of accounting in respect of the export cash assistance, from accrual to actual basis and followed mercantile system in respect of other items. Such a changeover was made for a better understanding of the profit earned by the assessee. As the amount was not being regularly received without any variation between the amount sought for and the amount granted, it was considered convenient to follow the accrual basis as the method of accounting, in respect of the export cash assistance.

2. The assessing officer took the view that it was impermissible for the assessee to change the mode of accounting in that manner. That view was overruled in appeal by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who held that the change of mode of accounting had been made to avoid the real and genuine problems in the accounting and in order to more accurately show the profits. Before the Tribunal that finding of the appellate authority was not challenged. It was merely contended by the revenue that the change should not have been made in respect of one of the items of receipt. The Tribunal did not accept that contention and in our view, rightly.

3. The change in the accounting insofar as export cash assistance is concerned having been made bona fide and with a view to avoid genuine problems and there being nothing in the Act which would come in the way of such change being effected with respect to one or more items with a view to better reflect the true position in the accounts, the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting that change in the method of accounting.

4. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in accepting the change in the method of accounting made by the assessee-company from mercantile to cash system of accounting in respect of export incentives and in consequently sustaining the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 21,766 in 1981-82 and of Rs. 16,464 in 1982-83, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

5. The two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are :

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1-5-1981, as modified by the supplementary deed dated 27-9-1982

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, part of the interest on fixed deposits from the public was liable to be disallowed under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84

6. Questions similar to these questions have been considered by this court in the case of L.G. Balakrishna & Bros. Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]245ITR743(Mad) and those questions were answered against the revenue. For the reasons stated in that judgment, these questions are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial