Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Rajaram Ba...

Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Rajaram Bandekar Andsons (Shipping)Pvt.ltd. 1999 Itr 628 (S.c

High Court 23 Apr 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Rajaram Bandekar Andsons (Shipping)Pvt.ltd. 1999 Itr 628 (S.c
Date of order
23 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Rajaram Bandekar Andsons (Shipping)Pvt.ltd. 1999 Itr 628 (S.c, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K.Ltd (245 ITR 498) Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K.Ltd (245 ITR 498) was right in making addition made by the Assessing Officer...

Decision: We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAXAPPEAL NO.981 OF 2003. INCOME TAX Vithal Sahakari Sakhar ... Appellant. V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Spl.Range-3) ... Respondents. and Ors. Mr Bhushan Mahadik for the Appellant. Mr Ashok Kotangale with P. S. Sahadevan for the respondents. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 23rd April 2007. DATED : 23rd April 2007. DATED : 23rd April 2007. P.C. : P.C. :---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant pressing only the following two questions of law; 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K.Ltd (245 ITR 498) Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K.Ltd (245 ITR 498) was right in making addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on non-refundable deposit collected by the Assessee out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers as Trading Receipts of the Assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in making addition of Rs. 26,882/-deleted by the Assessing Officer on account of guest house expenses? 3. As far as the first question of law is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties state that the said question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajaram Bandekar andSons (Shipping)Pvt.Ltd. 1999 ITR 628 (S.C.). Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shipping)Pvt.Ltd. 1999 ITR 628 (S.C.) 4. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan