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.)
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.