Partly allowed

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

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014ITR/292/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an income tax reference regarding the treatment of various funds. It held funds under the Malegaon precedent are non-taxable, taxed the Sugarcane development fund, and remanded the status of Area development and Famine relief funds.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of Sugarcane development fund addition allowed; Area development and Famine relief fund questions remanded.

The C.I.T.Nashik. Vs Kadwa S.S.K.Ltd. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

16.itr292.99

sbw

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

¶5

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 292 OF 1999

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Nashik ..Applicant - Versus - Kadwa S.S.K. Ltd. ..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 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

	Assessment 1987-88	year 1988-89
1.Sugarcane development fund	Rs.1,26,020/-	Rs.5,66,480/-
2.Area development fund	Rs.1,25,749/-	Rs.1,26,620/-
3.Famine Relief fund	Rs.2,52,040/-	Rs.2,53,240/-
4.Non refundable deposit	Rs.10,72,850/-	Rs.11,41,687/-
5.Hutment fund	–	Rs.63,310/-
6.Chief Minister's relief fund	–	Rs.63,310/-.

1/2

16.itr292.99

2] The issues pertaining to Non-refundable deposit, Hutment fund and Chief Minister's relief fund have been dealt with in view of the decision of

¶21

this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in (2005) 279 ITR 19 (Bom). We accordingly, hold that the Tribunal is correct in deleting the same from the income of the Karkhana. The question in relation to Non-refundable deposits, Hutment fund and Chief Minister's relief fund are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

¶22

3] Sugarcane development fund being part of the income of the Karkhana, the deletion of same by the Tribunal is incorrect and accordingly, we answer the question in relation to Sugarcane Development Fund in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.

¶23

4] As far as Area development fund and Famine relief fund are concerned, same are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 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.Nashik. v. Kadwa S.S.K.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.I.T.Nashik. v. Kadwa 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.