Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar
High Court
05 Jul 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar
Date of order
05 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Issue: In this Reference, the Revenue has raised the following questions of law for opinion of this Court. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT relying on the Special Bench of ITAT Pune’s decision in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd.
Decision: Accordingly, the Reference is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.149 OF 1997
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.149 OF 1997
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Nashik ...Applicant
V/s.
Ashok Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd.
Ashoknagar, Tal.Shrirampur,
Dist.Ahmednagar ...Respondents.
Mr.Parag Vyas with A.S.Rao for the Applicant.
Mr.Pramod Vaidya for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 5th July, 2005.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per J.H.Bhatia,J.)
1. In this Reference, the Revenue has
raised the following questions of law for
opinion of this Court.
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the ITAT
relying on the Special Bench of ITAT
Pune’s decision in the case of Shri
Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR
78-AT), was right in deleting the
following additions by holding that
the various funds and deposits
collected by the assessee society
out of the sugarcane purchase price
payable to the cane growers are not
trading receipts of the assessee as
held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Bazpur Co-op.Sugar Mills
Ltd. 172 ITR 321 and 177 ITR 469 ?"
: 2 :
1.Non refundable deposits Rs. 4,88,164/-
2.Interest on NRD Rs. 13,96,482/-
2. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the ITAT
was right in law in holding that the
order u/s 154 passed by the A.O. in
view of the Supreme Court’s decision
in the case of Bazpur Co-op. Sugar
Mills Ltd. 172 ITR 321 cannot be
sustained though the same was passed
before the ITAT, Special Bench,
Pune’s decision in the case of Shri
Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. dated
16/1/1992 was received?"
3."Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the ITAT
was right in holding that the issue
involved was debatable inspite of
Supreme Court’s decision on the
issue in the case of Bazpur
Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. (172 ITR
321)?"
2. The question of Non-refundable
deposits and interest on Non-refundable
deposits is squarely covered by the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income
n Commissioner of Income
Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar
Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Income Tax Reports 1
Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270
as also in the judgment of this Court in
Income Tax Appeal No.9 of 1999. The Supreme
Court has distinguished the rules obtained in
Maharashtra and U.P. In view of these two
authorities, it is clear that the deductions
on account of Non-refundable deposits are not
liable to be added in the income and
: 3 :
provisions for interest on Non-refundable
Deposits is liable to be deducted from the
income of the Society in view of the rules
obtained in Maharashtra.
3. In the result, we answer the
questions in affirmative, that is in favour of
the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Accordingly, the Reference is disposed of.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, 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.