Section 36(1)(xvii) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 36(1)(xvii), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
CIT v Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd
Supreme CourtCuts both ways
The Assessing Officer has disallowed the whole difference between the statutory minimum cane price and the State advised price my sugar co-operative paid its members. Can he?
No — not the whole difference. The Supreme Court held that only that component of the final or additional cane price fixed under Clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966 which represents profit is an appropriation of profit; the rest is deductible expenditure. The Assessing Officer must actually do the exercise of identifying the profit component from the accounts and the material supplied to the State Government, and all the orders below were set aside and the matters remitted for that purpose.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
