Partly allowed

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

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014ITR/271/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a reference regarding the taxability of funds collected by an assessee society. The Court clarified treatment of specific funds, upheld application of a Supreme Court precedent for one fund, and remanded certain matters to the Tribunal due to lack of material.

What did the court decide?

Reference 271 of 1999 disposed of partly allowing question number 1 and 2, while remitting question number 3 and 4 to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

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

14.itr271.99

sbw

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

¶5

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.271 OF 1999

¶6

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur ..Applicant - Versus - Shetkari S.S.K. Ltd. Sangli ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Revenue.

¶8

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the Assessee.

¶9

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶10

A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 13^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1] The Tribunal has forwarded the following substantial question of

¶14

law for the opinion of this Court:-

¶15

“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 the 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.

¶16

	Assessme 1984-85	nt year 1989-90
1. Chief Minister's relief fund	Rs.5,63,710/-	Rs.7,80,813/-
2. Hutment Fund	Rs.5,63,710/-	Rs.7,80,813/-
3. Cane Development Fund	Rs.9,97,870/-	–
4. Area Development Fund	Rs.22,51,199/-	–
5. Refundable deposits	–	Rs.3,32,30,487/-

¶17

1/2

¶18

	2
6. Interest on refundable	–	Rs.1,04,29,208/-
deposits
7. Floor relief fund	–	Rs.14,30,303/-.

¶19

2] As regards Chief Minister's relief fund, Hutment Fund are concerned, the same do not part in income of the Karkhana and accordingly, question is in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

¶20

3] Cane development fund is already been held to be income of the Karkhana and accordingly, the deletion of the same by the Tribunal is incorrect. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The issue of Area development fund has already been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in view of the decision of

¶21

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar

¶22

Karkhana reported in (2004) 12 SCC 1.

¶23

4] As far as refundable deposits, interest thereon and Flood relief fund are concerned, the same are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration for want of any material. Accordingly, the Reference is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶24

(A. K. MENON, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶25

wadhwa

¶26

2/2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. v. Shetkari 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.Nashik Vs Samarth S.S.K.Ltd.

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

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