Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax -I v. Vis...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax -I v. Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar

High Court 08 Oct 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax -I v. Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar
Date of order
08 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax -I v. Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal relying on the decision of Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Decision: The appeal is disposed of.

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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.990 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax -I .. Appellant. Versus Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited .. Respondent. Mr.B.M. Chatterji with Mrs.P.P. Bhosale with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. : 1. Admit. Heard forthwith. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal relying on the decision of Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (245 ITR 498 (Bom) was right in deleting the following additions by holding that the following funds collected by the assessee society out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee ? i) Cane Development Fund Rs. 6,71,667/- ii) Area Development Fund Rs.16,00,427/- 2. The said question is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 270 I.T.R. 1 and Judgment of this Court reported in 279 I.T.R. 1 (Bom.). 3. In the light of that, the matter is remanded 2 back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court. 4. On behalf of the respondent, Advocate A.K. Jasani waives service. 5. The appeal is disposed of. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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