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.)
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.