THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN REFERENCE CASE No.46 OF 1996 REFERENCE CASE No.107 OF 1996 AND REFERENCE CASE No.212 OF 1996 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan The question, referred by the Tribunal, for our opinion in these three Revision Cases are similar and it would suffice if the question referred in R.C. No. 107 of 1996 is noted. The said question reads as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and particularly in the context of the fact that an appeal against the judgment of the High Court nullifying the liability is pending before the Supreme Court, that the operation of the judgment of the High Court is stayed by the Supreme Court and that a bank guarantee is given as a security for the liability, the Tribunal is correct in holding that there is no existing liability to pay the sum of Rs.16,97,819 and the interest of Rs.2,12,227 thereon, to the Levy Sugar price Equalisation Fund and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest liability of Rs.2,12,227 for the deduction of interest liability of Rs.2,12,227 in assessment for the year 1986-87 (1987-88 in R.A. No.917/H/95) ?” The aforesaid question has been answered in favour of the revenue by a Division bench of this Court in Nizamabad Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax[1], and the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.C.P. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (S.C)[2]. Following the aforesaid judgments, the question, referred for our opinion in these three Revision Cases is also answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference cases are disposed of accordingly. ______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J ____________________________ 15.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR [1] RC No.62 of 1991 dated 21.01.2003 [2] 245 ITR 421