Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Case — Funds Collected by Sugar Cooperative from Cane Growers Held Not Trading Receipts. The Court followed Supreme Court precedent in CIT v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (270 ITR 1) and its own Division Bench in Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 1) to hold that various funds and deposits collected from cane growers are not trading receipts.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 157
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Revenue appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-refundable deposits, C.M.s Relief Fund, Area Development Fund, Cane Development Fund, Hutment Fund, Education Fund, Shri Y.B.Chavan Memorial Trust, and interest on non-refundable deposits. The Tribunal held that these funds/deposits collected by the assessee society out of sugarcane purchase price payable to cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee. The Revenue raised a substantial question of law. The High Court heard the counsels and noted that the subject was squarely covered by the authority of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (270 ITR 1) and the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (229 ITR 1). Following these precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the additions. The Court did not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal and answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Cooperative Sugar Factory - Trading Receipts - Various funds and deposits collected by a cooperative sugar factory from cane growers out of sugarcane purchase price are not trading receipts of the assessee - The Supreme Court in CIT v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (270 ITR 1) and the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 1) have held that such collections are not trading receipts - The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as covered by these authorities (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting additions made on account of non-refundable deposits and various funds collected by the assessee society out of sugarcane purchase price payable to cane growers, by holding that such funds/deposits are not trading receipts of the assessee.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The question of law is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

Law Points

  • Funds collected by a cooperative sugar factory from cane growers as non-refundable deposits
  • C.M.s Relief Fund
  • Area Development Fund
  • Cane Development Fund
  • Hutment Fund
  • Education Fund
  • Shri Y.B.Chavan Memorial Trust
  • and interest on non-refundable deposits are not trading receipts of the assessee.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 110

Income Tax Appeal No.88 of 1999

2005-08-08

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, J.H. Bhatia

Dr. P. Daniel with Mr. A.S. Rao for the Appellants; None for the Respondent

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

Shri Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's order deleting additions made on account of various funds and deposits collected by the assessee society.

Filing Reason

The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the funds/deposits collected from cane growers are not trading receipts.

Previous Decisions

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted the additions, relying on the Special Bench decision in Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K. Ltd. (198 ITR 78 (A.T.)).

Issues

Whether the funds/deposits collected by the assessee society out of sugarcane purchase price payable to cane growers are trading receipts of the assessee.

Submissions/Arguments

The Revenue argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified and the Tribunal erred in deleting them. The assessee did not appear, but the Court noted that the subject was covered by Supreme Court and Division Bench authorities.

Ratio Decidendi

Various funds and deposits collected by a cooperative sugar factory from cane growers out of sugarcane purchase price are not trading receipts of the assessee, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (270 ITR 1) and the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 1).

Judgment Excerpts

Admittedly the subject is squarely covered by the authority of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 270 ITR 1, and also by the authority of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 229 ITR 1.

Procedural History

The Assessing Officer made additions on account of various funds and deposits. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which deleted the additions. The Revenue then appealed to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 260A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Case — Funds Collected by Sugar Cooperative from Cane Growers Held Not Trading Receipts. The Court followed Supreme Court precedent in CIT v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Tenant's Petition in Eviction Suit — Landlord Failed to Prove Bona Fide Need for Residential Premises Under Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Tenant's Use of Rear Rooms for Storage and Occasional Stay Did No...