Itxa/665/2003 Of Shri Siddeshwar Ssk Ltd. Solapur v. Deputy Commissioner Of Incommissioner Of Income-Tax,Solapur
High Court
19 Jan 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/665/2003 Of Shri Siddeshwar Ssk Ltd. Solapur v. Deputy Commissioner Of Incommissioner Of Income-Tax,Solapur
Date of order
19 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/665/2003 Of Shri Siddeshwar Ssk Ltd. Solapur v. Deputy Commissioner Of Incommissioner Of Income-Tax,Solapur, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Under these circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and the appeal is allowed.
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.665 OF 2003
Shri Siddeshwar SSK Ltd. .. Appellant.
V/s.
Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Special Range-3, Solapur .. Respondent.
Mr.Pramodkumar Vaidya i/b. S.N. Inamdar for the
appellant.
Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mr.V.H. Kantharia i/b. P.
Kapur for the respondent.
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2005.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The issue involved in the present appeal is
whether the non-refundable and refundable deposits
can be construed as income of the assessee/society ?
The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to
our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax & Others [270 ITR1]. In the said matter, the Supreme Court has
V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax & Others [270 ITR
1]
clearly held that ‘non-refundable and refundable
deposits cannot be treated as income of the assessee
2
/ society’.
3. Under these circumstances, the substantial
question of law is answered in favour of the
appellant and the appeal is allowed. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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.