Itxa/822/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shri Shankar S.s.k.ltd
High Court
03 Sep 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/822/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shri Shankar S.s.k.ltd
Date of order
03 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/822/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shri Shankar S.s.k.ltd, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the assessing officer in respect of the deductions made by the assessee from cane price towards following (a) C.M.
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 JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.822 OF 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.822 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Shankar S.S.K. Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2007.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard. Admit on the following questions of
law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right
in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the
additions made by the assessing officer in
respect of the deductions made by the assessee
from cane price towards following
(a) C.M. Relief fund Rs.03,83,890/-
(b) Cane development fund Rs.13,64,320/-
(c) Area development fund Rs.04,26,335/-
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in
permitting deductions of recoveries made from
cane price for Chief Minister Relief Fund,
Small Saving Scheme, Area development fund and
Cane development fund on the principle of
diversion by overriding title stated in the
decision in 245 ITR 498 (Bom), even though
these amounts were not disbursed to the said
funds during year under appeal and deductions
- = : 2 : = -
of Rs.10,13,282/- was allowed in the assessment
order on actual disbursement / payment ?
2. By consent of the learned counsel on both
sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. Counsel on both sides agree that the issue
raised herein are covered by the Judgment of the Apex
Siddheshwar Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. V/s. Commissioner Income Tax reported270 I.T.R. 1 (S.C.) and the decision of this Court
Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. V/s. Commissioner Income Tax
in 270 I.T.R. 1 (S.C.)
in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in 279I.T.R. 19 (Bom.). Accordingly, the questions framed
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
I.T.R. 19 (Bom.)
hereinabove is answered by holding that the
contribution to the C.M. relief fund is liable to be
deducted from the income of the assessee whereas
contribution to the cane development is assessable to
tax. As regard the contribution to the area
development fund is concerned, as per the order of the
Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana (supra) the issue is remanded to the assessing
officer for de novo consideration.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with
no order as to costs.
- = : 3 : = -
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELL0, 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.