Case LawHigh Court › Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd v. Joint Commis...

Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 04 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
04 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Shri Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

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 O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No. 1152 of 2004 Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. ..Appellant vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Mr.S.N.Inamdar for appellant Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law. "a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that non refundable deposits collected from members as per bye laws constitute trading receipts/income in the hands of the Appellant? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances -2- of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that interest paid by the Appellant on the said non refundable deposits constitute trading receipt of the Appellant and hence taxable in its hands? 3. By consent of both parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing. As far as first question mentioned hereinabove is concerned, both the learned Counsel categorically state that the said question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in 270 ITR 1. In view thereof first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. As far as second question of law is concerned, the same has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Malegaon Sahakaria Sakhar Karkhanaa Ltd. reported in 279 ITR 19 (Bom). Accordingly the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. -3- (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA 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