| Case ID |
2be7dd26-39df-4db7-89b4-e83832708f90 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 221 OF 1992 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 24, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the amount of Rs. 7.50 per tonne of sugarcane collected by the respondent-assessee from its member-cane growers was a deposit towards shares to be issued in the future and not a trading receipt. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld, affirming that the revenue failed to prove the nature of the receipts as revenue. The deposits were collected as per the co-operative mill's bye-laws and were to be adjusted against future share issuance, with any surplus refundable to members. The Apex Court's precedent in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT supported this conclusion, further clarifying that such deposits do not constitute trading receipts. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., decided by the Allahabad High Court on March 24, 2005, the court examined the nature of non-refundable deposits collected by a co-operative sugar mill from its member-cane growers. The central issue was whether these deposits could be classified as income for the assessment year 1981-82 under Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the deposits, intended to be converted into shares, should not be considered trading receipts. The ruling emphasized the importance of understanding the context of such deposits within the framework of tax law. This case underscores the distinction between capital and revenue receipts, reinforcing the legal principle that not all amounts received by an entity constitute taxable income. The court's decision aligns with prior rulings, notably the Supreme Court's judgment in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that similar deposits from members are not trading receipts. The ruling has significant implications for co-operative societies and their financial dealings, setting a precedent for how non-refundable deposits should be treated for tax purposes. This case is relevant for tax practitioners, co-operative organizations, and legal scholars interested in income tax law and its application in cooperative finance. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
|
| Judges |
R.K. Agrawal,
Prakash Krishna
|
| Lawyers |
Shambhoo Chopra,
Amitabh Agrawal,
P.K. Jain
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 2640,
(2005) 278 ITR 670
|
| Other Citations |
Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 1/ 139 Taxman 434
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
28(i)
|