Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

factually and procedurally, and the judgment):

NAME OF THE CASEAND ITS PARTIES

L.B. SUGAR FACTORY & OIL MILLS (P) LTD. PILIBHIT (PETITIONER)

VS.

C.I.T. U.P, LUCKHNOW (RESPONDENT)

WHAT HAPPENED FACTUALLY-

The appellant was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of sugar in sugar factory which was
situated in Pilibhit in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

In the year 1952-53, the assesse contributes the sum of Rs.22,332 during the accounting year ending 30
Sep, 1955 on the request of the collector for the construction of the Deoni Dam and the Deoni Dam
Majhala Road.

In the same accounting year, the assesse also contributed a sum of Rs 50000 to the state of U.P for the
construction of roads which is area covered around its factory under a sugarcane Development Scheme
promoted by the Uttar Pradesh government as part of the Second five year plan.

When the time came for Assessment to Income tax in the Assessment Year 1956-57, the assesse claimed
his both the amounts of Rs. 22,332 and Rs. 50,000 to deduct them as deductible expenditure under sec
10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income tax act, 1922 but the income tax officer disallowed the claim for
deduction on the basis that the expenditure accrued was of capital nature and was not allowable as a
deduction under section 10(2)(xv).

The assesse filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but that appeal failed and further
the assesse filed an appeal before the tribunal. His appeal was heard by two members of the tribunal
and they both have the different opinion.

The assesse sought a reference to the high Court.