{"id":266559,"date":"1986-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986"},"modified":"2015-04-26T19:32:55","modified_gmt":"2015-04-26T14:02:55","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1746, 1986 SCR (3) 214<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAXMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/07\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR 1746\t\t  1986 SCR  (3) 214\n 1986 SCC  (3) 528\t  JT 1986   239\n 1986 SCALE  (2)33\n\n\nACT:\n     Super Profits  Tax Act, 1963, ss. 2(9), 4 and Rule 1 of\nSecond Schedule-Standard  deduction-What is-Assessee setting\napart amounts  for additional  cane price  payable to  cane-\ngrowers-Amounts-Whether\t a   \"provision\"  or   a  \"reserve\"-\nDistinction between-Description\t in  the  Balance-Sheet\t not\nconclusive of its true nature.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     For the  assessment  years\t 1961-62  and  1962-63,\t the\nrespondent assessee had debited an amount of Rs.5,40,000 and\nan amount  of Rs.2,76,000  to its profit and loss account of\nthe relevant  previous years  respectively. The amounts were\ndebited on  the ground\tthat they represented the assessee's\nliability of  the relevant  years for  the  additional\tcane\nprice payable  to cane-growers\tunder  the  Sugarcane  Price\nControl Order,\t1955 and  were shown  in  the  balance-sheet\nunder  the   head  \"Current   liabilities  and\tprovisions\".\nHowever, in  the subsequent accounting year ending September\n1963, the  assessee had\t credited its  profits by  the\tsaid\namounts by  reversing the entries, and had not made any such\nprovision in the subsequent years.\n     In assessment  proceedings under  the Super Profits Tax\nAct, 1963  for the  assessment year  1963-64, the Income-tax\nOfficer did  not include  both the  aforesaid amounts in the\ncapital computation of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant\nCommissioner affirmed  the  view  taken\t by  the  Income-tax\nOfficer. But,  on second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held\nthat the  amount represented  a \"reserved\"  and should\thave\nbeen included  in the  capital computation  of the assessee.\nThe High Court also agreed with the Tribunal.\n     Dismissing the appeal by the Revenue,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The Rules  made under  the Super\t Profits Tax\nAct, 1963 provide for computing the capital of a company for\nthe purpose of super\n215\nprofits tax. A perusal of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule will\nshow that  for the  purposes of\t that rule  the capital of a\ncompany includes  the reserve  created\tunder  some  of\t the\nprovisions of  the  Indian  Income-tax\tAct<\/a>  and  its  other\nreserves in  so far  as the  amount credited  to such  other\nreserves has  not been\tallowed in computing its profits for\nthe purposes of the Income-tax Act<\/a>. [217D-E]\n     2. In determining whether an item is a \"provision\" or a\n\"reserve\" the  true nature  and\t character  of\tthe  sum  so\nretained or  appropriated must\tbe determined  and its\tmere\ndescription by\tthe assessee  in its  Balance-Sheet  is\t not\nconclusive of  its true\t nature. A  provision  is  a  charge\nagainst the  profits, being  made against anticipated losses\nand contingencies.  A \"reserve\",  on  the  contrary,  is  an\nappropriation  of   profits,  the  assets  by  which  it  is\nrepresented being  retained to\tform  part  of\tthe  capital\nemployed in  the business.  Unlike a  \"provision\" which is a\npresent charge\tagainst the  profits, the assessee continues\nto enjoy a proprietor's interest in the \"reserve\" [218C-E]\n     In the  instant case,  the evidence  clearly  disclosed\nthat there was no liability at all on the assessee requiring\nit to  set apart  a sum\t as a charge against its profits and\nthere was  never any intention to make payments to the cane-\ngrowers nor  was payment ever made but, on the contrary, the\nassessee reversed  the entries\tin a  subsequent year in its\nbooks. It is apparent that the amount cannot be described as\na \"provision\".\tIt can\tonly be described as a \"reserve\". It\nwas part  of the  capital which\t fell for  computation under\nRule 1 of the Second Schedule. [218E-F]\n     Vazir  Sultan  Tobacco  Co.  Ltd.\tv.  Commissioner  of\nIncome-tax, A.P<\/a>.,  [1981] 132  ITR 559; and Metal Box Co. of\nIndia Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>, [1969] 73 ITR 53 relied upon.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.\t1613
\n(NT) of 1974
\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated 26th April, 1973 of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in Misc. Case No. 202 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
\n     P.K. Mukharjee and A.K. Sengupta for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n216<\/span>
\n     PATHAK J.\tThis appeal  by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the   judgment\t of  the  High\tCourt  of  Allahabad
\npronouncing on\tthe meaning  of the expression ‘reserves’ in
\nthe Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the  assessment  years  1961-62  and\t1962-63\t the
\nassessee had  debited an amount of Rs.5,40,000 and an amount
\nof Rs.2,76,000\tto its\tprofit\tand  loss  accounts  of\t the
\nrelevant  previous  years  respectively.  The  amounts\twere
\ndebited on  the ground\tthat they represented the assessee’s
\nliability of  the relevant  years for  the  additional\tcane
\nprice payable  to cane\tgrowers in  terms of a price linking
\nformula to  be fixed  by the  Competent Authority  under the
\nSugarcane Price\t Control Order\t1955. Accordingly an item of
\nRs.8,16,000 being  the sum  of the two amounts, was shown in
\nthe Balance  Sheet of the assessee as on September 30, 1962.
\nThe item  was shown  under the head “Current liabilities and
\nprovisions”.\n<\/p>\n
     In assessment  proceedings under  the Super Profits Tax
\nAct, 1963  for the  assessment year  1963-64, the Income-tax
\nOfficer did  not include  the amount  of Rs.8,16,000  in the
\ncapital\t computation   of  the\t assessee.  Dismissing\t the
\nassessee’s  appeal,  the  Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner
\naffirmed the  view taken  by  the  Income-tax  Officer.\t The
\nAppellate Assistant  Commissioner held\tthat the  amount did
\nnot qualify  as a  ‘reserve’ inasmuch  as the  assessee\t had
\nitself shown  it as  a ‘provision’  in its Balance Sheet. On
\nsecond\tappeal,\t  the  Appellate  Tribunal  noted  that\t the
\nliability had  not been\t allowed as  a deduction  on revenue
\naccount by  the Income-tax authorities and that the decision
\nwas accepted  by the  assessee. It also observed that in the
\nsubsequent  accounting\t year  ending  September  1963,\t the
\nassessee had  credited its  profits by\tthe said  amount  by
\nreversing the entries, and further that the assessee had not
\nmade any such provision in the subsequent years. It was also
\nnot disputed  that no such payment was ever actually made by
\nthe assessee.  In the  circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal
\nheld that  the liability  for which the ‘provision’ was made
\nwas at\tthe best unreal and imagined or the mere possibility
\nof a  liability. The  Appellate Tribunal  was unimpressed by
\nthe description of the item as a ‘provision’ by the assessee
\nin its\tBalance Sheet.\tThe Appellate Tribunal held that the
\namount represented a ‘reserve’ and should have been included
\nin the capital computation of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  instance of  the Revenue the Appellate Tribunal
\nreferred the  case to  the High\t Court of  Allahabad for its
\nopinion on the following question:\n<\/p>\n
217<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Whether on  the facts and in the circumstances of
\n\t  the case  the provision  for additional cane price
\n\t  amounting to\tRs.8,16,000 was rightly treated as a
\n\t  ‘reserve’ forming  part of  the assessee’s capital
\n\t  for the  purposes of\tassessment to  Super Profits
\n\t  Tax for the year under consideration?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High Court answered the question in the affirmative
\nby its judgment dated April 26, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     We are of opinion that the High Court is right. Section
\n4 of the Super Profits Tax Act 1963 levies super profits tax
\non every  company in  respect of  so much  of its chargeable
\nprofits\t of   the  previous  year  as  exceed  the  standard
\ndeduction. The expression ‘standard deduction’ is defined by
\nsub-s. (9) of s. 2<\/a> of the Act to mean an amount equal to six
\nper cent  of the  capital of  the  company  as\tcomputed  in
\naccordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule, or an
\namount of  fifty thousand  rupees, whichever is greater. The
\nRules provide for computing the capital of a company for the
\npurposes of  super profits  tax. A  perusal of rule 1 of the
\nSecond Schedule will show that for the purposes of that rule
\nthe capital  of a company includes the reserve created under
\nsome of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act<\/a> and “its
\nother reserves\tin so  far as  the amounts  credited to such
\nother reserves\thave  not  been\t allowed  in  conputing\t its
\nprofits” for the purposes of the Income-tax Act<\/a>. The concept
\nembodied in  the word  “reserves” used in that rule has been
\nexamined by  this Court\t in the context of the Super Profits
\nTax Act,  1963 and  the analogous  enactment, the  Companies
\n(Profits) Super\t Tax Act,  1964. In a recent decision, Vazir
\nSultan Tobacco\tCo.  Ltd.  v.  Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,
\nA.P<\/a>.,[1981] 132\t ITR 559, this Court had occasion to examine
\nthe significance  and scope  of the  concept. In doing so it
\nreferred to  the earlier pronouncement of the Court in Metal
\nBox Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a>, [1969] 73 ITR 53.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The distinction between a provision and a reserve
\n\t  is in\t commercial accountancy\t fairly well  known.
\n\t  Provisions made  against  anticipated\t losses\t and
\n\t  contingencies are  charges  against  profits\tand,
\n\t  therefore, to be taken into  account against gross
\n\t  receipts in  the Profit  and Loss  Account and the
\n\t  Balance Sheet.  On the  other hand,  reserves\t are
\n\t  appropriations of  profits, the  assets  by  which
\n\t  they are  represented being  retained to form part
\n\t  of  the   capital  employed\tin   the   business.
\n\t  Provisions are  usually shown in the Balance Sheet
\n\t  by way of deductions from the
\n218<\/span>
\n\t  assets in  respect of which they are made, whereas
\n\t  general reserves  and reserve\t funds are  shown as
\n\t  part of the proprietor’s interest. (See Spicer and
\n\t  Pegler’s Book-Keeping\t and Accounts, 15th Edn., p.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  42)”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Regard was\t had by the court to the relevant provisions
\nof the\tCompanies Act<\/a>,\t1956 including\tthe form  set out in
\nPart I, Schedule VI thereof where both expressions “Reserves
\nand Surpluses” and “Current Liabilities and Provisions” have
\nbeen used.  It is  not necessary, we think, to embark upon a
\ndetailed discussion of the distinction between a ‘provision’
\nand a  ‘reserve’. It  is sufficient for us to point out that
\nin determining\twhether\t an  item  is  a  ‘provision’  or  a
\n‘reserve’ the  true nature  and\t character  of\tthe  sum  so
\nretained or  appropriated must\tbe determined  and its\tmere
\ndescription by\tthe assessee  in its  Balance Sheet  is\t not
\nconclusive of  its true\t nature. It  is now  settled that  a
\n‘provision’ is\ta charge  against the  profits,\t being\tmade
\nagainst anticipated  losses and\t contingencies. A ‘reserve’,
\non the\tcontrary, is an appropriation of profits, the assets
\nby which  it is\t represented being  retained to form part of
\nthe capital  employed in  the business. Unlike a ‘provision’
\nwhich is  a present charge against the profits, the assessee
\ncontinues to enjoy a proprietor’s interest in the ‘reserve’.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the   present\tcase,\twhen  the  evidence  clearly
\ndiscloses that there was no liability at all on the assessee
\nrequiring it  to set  apart a  sum as  a charge\t against its
\nprofits and  there was\tnever any intention to make payments
\nto the\tcane-growers nor  was payment  ever made but, on the
\ncontrary, the  assessee reversed the entries in a subsequent
\nyear in its books, it is apparent that the amount can not be
\ndescribed as  a ‘provision’.  It can  only be described as a
\n‘reserve’. It  was  part  of  the  capital  which  fell\t for
\ncomputation under rule 1 of the Second Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
M.L.A.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n219<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1746, 1986 SCR (3) 214 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: LAXMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/07\/1986 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\"},\"wordCount\":1251,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986","datePublished":"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986"},"wordCount":1251,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T14:02:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-u-p-vs-laxmi-sugar-oil-mills-ltd-on-16-july-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd on 16 July, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}