| Case ID |
1a3ba0f4-a8ed-41bc-9e19-8f77706c157f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 140 OF 1974 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 15, 1976 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Gujarat High Court held that the value of materials supplied by the railway authorities should not be included in the total receipts of the assessee for calculating net profit. The court established that contracts for building construction can be divided into categories based on whether the contractor was aware of the material supplies at the time of bidding. In this case, it was determined that the contractor had entered into the agreement on the understanding that certain materials would be supplied by the authorities, which meant those costs should not be factored into the contractor's income calculations. The tribunal's decision to estimate a profit percentage of 10% was upheld, emphasizing the importance of the underlying contractual agreements in determining taxable income. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Trilokchand Chunilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Gujarat High Court addressed the accounting methods under Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning the treatment of materials supplied by railway authorities in construction contracts. The court ruled that a contractor's receipts should not include the value of materials supplied by the client, which in this case were cement and iron, as the contractor was not responsible for these costs in the agreement. This case highlights the significance of understanding the contractual terms in tax assessments and reinforces the principle that the actual nature of receipts should dictate tax liabilities rather than nominal accounting practices. The decision supports the contractor's position that profit calculations must reflect true economic realities, ensuring fairness in tax obligations. This ruling is critical for contractors and tax professionals, as it clarifies how to account for supplies received under contract terms, potentially impacting future tax assessments and litigation strategies. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B.J. DIVAN, C.J.,
B.K. MEHTA, J.
|
| Lawyers |
K.C. Patel for the Applicant,
K.H. Kaji for the Respondent,
R.P. Bhatt for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Trilokchand Chunilal
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1976 SLD 391 = (1976) 104 ITR 732
|
| Other Citations |
Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC),
CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 625 (All.),
CIT v. Brij Bhushan Lal, Ramesh Kumar [1976] 102 ITR 430 (Punj.),
Morley v. Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA),
V.D. Rajarathanam v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 19 (AP),
CIT v. K.S. Guruswami Gounder and K.S. Krishnaraju [1973] 92 ITR 90 (Mad.),
M.P. Alexander & Co. v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 92 (Ker.),
Brij Bushan Lal v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 497 (Punj.),
CIT v. K.S. Reddy [1976] 103 ITR 822 (AP)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
145
|