Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/602/2004 Of Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd. Pu...

Itxa/602/2004 Of Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd. Pune v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Pune

High Court 02 May 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/602/2004 Of Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd. Pune v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Pune
Date of order
02 May 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/602/2004 Of Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd. Pune v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Pune, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in disallowing interest actually paid by the appellant on the above deposits and treating the same as income of the appellant ? the same is answered by the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar SSK Ltd.,...

Decision: The Income Tax appeal stands disposed of.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.602 OF 2004 Chhatrapati SSK Ltd., Pune .. Appellant. V/s. Dy. CIT., SR-1, Pune .. Respondent. Mr.Pramod Vaidya for the appellant. Mr.A.S. Rao for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 2ND MAY, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard rival parties. Following two questions are raised in this appeal : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the additions by treating the amounts of non refundable deposits which were converted in to the share capital or repaid, as income of appellant ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in disallowing interest actually paid by the appellant on the above deposits and treating the same as income of the appellant ? the same is answered by the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar SSK Ltd., V/s. C.I.T. & Others [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC)] in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the above question is answered in terms of that judgment. 2 3. So far as question No.2 above is concerned, it relates to the interest on non-refundable deposits. In the light of Apex Court judgment in the case of Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal shall consider the same afresh. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to that extent is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. (supra). 5. The Income Tax appeal stands disposed of. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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