In Itxa/906/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The question of law as formulated in this appeal reads as under : 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of Chhatrapati SSK Ltd.
Decision: Impugned order is set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.906 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram SSK Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P. Bhosale i/by
Pankaj Kapoor for the appellant.
Mr.S.N. Inamdar with Mr.A.K. Jasani for the
respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH JULY, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Admit. Heard forthwith.
2. The issue in this appeal is covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited V/s.
CIT and CIT V/s. Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited reported in [2004] 270 ITR 1 (SC) as
followed by this Court in the case of CIT V/s.
Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited reported in
[2005] 279 ITR 19 (Bom).
3. The question of law as formulated in this
appeal reads as under :
2
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Tribunal, relying
on the decision of Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (245
ITR 498)(Bom) was right in deleting the
following addition by holding that the fund
collected by the assessee society out of the
sugar cane purchase price payable to the
cane-growers is not trading receipts of the
assessee ?
i] Cane Development Fund Rs.12,54,387/-
4. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the
appeal is remanded back to the Tribunal for denovo
consideration in accordance with law.
5. Impugned order is set aside. The appeal is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(F.I. REBELLO, 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.