Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Jul 2007
- Bench
- P DEVADHAR
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Judgment
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Ms.Poonam Bhosale for appellant. Mr.S.N.Inamdar with A.K.Jasani for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2007. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2007. DATED : 25TH JULY, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :-
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad has filed this appeal under 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating that the following question of law arise out of the order dated 4/9/2003 of the Tribunal. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal relying upon the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of CIT V/s. Chatrapati SSK Ltd. (2000) (245 ITR 498) was right in law in deleting the following additions by holding that various funds / deposits collected by the assessee society out of sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not the trading receipts of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. (172 ITR 321) ? i) Hutment for homeless 2,69,628/- ii) Area Development Fund 15,45,697/- - = : 2 : = - iii) Chatrapati S. Maharaj S.Nidhi 5,17,792/- iv) Cane Development Fund 20,84,812/-
Counsel on both sides agree that the question raised by the revenue is answered by the Apex Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Court in the case of Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar 270 I.T.R. 1. Karkhana Ltd. V/s. C.I.T. reported in 270 I.T.R. 1 Karkhana Ltd. V/s. C.I.T. 270 I.T.R. 1 Karkhana Ltd. V/s. C.I.T.
Operative part
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by remanding the issue relating to cane development fund and area development fund to the I.T.A.T. for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of the Apex Court. As regards the other items are concerned, it is held that the same do not constitute trading receipts of the assessee.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Jul 2007. The bench was P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.