Allowed

The C.I.T. Nashik v. Panzarakan S.S.K.Ltd.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014ITR/156/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court ruled on four Income Tax Reference cases concerning sugarcane societies. The Court held that non-refundable deposits and interest thereon are not income of the society, affirming the lower authorities. All references were disposed of in favour of the assessees against the Revenue.

What did the court decide?

All four Income Tax References were disposed of by answering the questions in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.

The C.I.T. Nashik Vs Panzarakan S.S.K.Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

10,ITR156,171,200.99,60.02

¶3

sbw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.156 OF 1999

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik ..Applicant - Versus - Panzarakhan S.S.K. Ltd. Bhadne ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.171 OF 1999

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik ..Applicant - Versus - Satpuda Tapi Parisar S.S.K. Ltd. ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.200 OF 1999

¶8

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur ..Applicant - Versus - Shri Dudhanganga Vedganga S.S.K. Ltd. Bidri. ..Respondent WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.60 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur ..Applicant - Versus - Satara Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Revenue. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Assessee.

¶10

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 13^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶12

1/3

¶13

2 10,ITR156,171,200.99,60.02

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1] In the above four References, a common question has been referred for opinion of this Court, albeit being differently worded. For ease of reference the questions in Income Tax Reference Nos.156 of 1999, 171 of 1999 and 200 of 1999 is reproduced below:-

¶16

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT relying on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR 78-AT) was right in deleting the following additions by holding that various funds/deposits collected by the assessee society out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee.

¶17

Non refundable deposits

¶18

Interest on N.R.D.

¶19

2] The question in Income Tax Reference No.60 of 2002 is differently worded and is reproduced below:-

¶20

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of its Special Bench in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR 78-AT), was right in deleting the additions made on account of Nonrefundable deposits Rs.25,33,534/- and interest on NRD Rs.8,56,317/- by holding that the various funds and deposits are not trading receipts of the assessee?”

¶21

3] The above questions have already been dealt with by this Court in

¶22

the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Malegaon

¶23

Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in (2005) 279 ITR 19

¶24

(Bom). It has been held that the two items, namely, Non-refundable

¶25

2/3

¶26

3 10,ITR156,171,200.99,60.02

¶27

deposits and interest on Non-refundable deposits are not income of the Karkhana. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in deleting the same. The questions in all the four References are, therefore, answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. All the above References are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶28

(A. K. MENON, J.)

¶29

( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶30

wadhwa

¶31

3/3

The C.I.T. Nashik v. Panzarakan S.S.K.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.I.T. Nashik v. Panzarakan S.S.K.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Singh Khurana Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept of Legal Affairs and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Iii, Pune Vs Shivshanti Constructions Private Limited

The Commissioner of Income TAX-4, Vs M/S. Tata Securities Ltd.

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. Vs Shetkari S.S.K. Ltd.

The C.I.T.Nashik Vs Samarth S.S.K.Ltd.

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. Vs Shriram S.S.K.Ltd.