9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of Non-Refundable Deposits. 2. Taxability of Refundable Deposits. 3. Taxability of Various Funds (Area Development Fund, Cane Development Fund, etc.). Summary: 1. Taxability of Non-Refundable Deposits: The primary issue was whether the non-refundable deposits collected by the assessee, a Co-operative sugar factory, from cane growers should be treated as trading receipts and thus taxable. The Commissioner of Income-tax had set aside the assessments for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the inclusion of these deposits as trading receipts, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. However, it was argued that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from Bazpur. The Tribunal examined the bye-laws of the assessee, particularly Bye-law 61A, which indicated that the primary purpose of collecting these deposits was to convert them into share capital after repaying loans and Government share capital. The Tribunal concluded that these deposits were not trading receipts as they were collected with an obligation to convert into share capital, retaining their character as liabilities until such conversion. 2. Taxability of Refundable Deposits: The refundable deposits, governed by Bye-law 61-B, were collected from the cane price payable to the suppliers and were to be used for the society's expansion and capital expenditure, with an obligation to refund after five years with interest. The Tribunal found it incomprehensible how these refundable deposits could be treated as income, given their nature as loans and the obligation to refund them. The Tribunal emphasized that the refundable deposits were retained from the cane price under Government directives, and the assessee acted merely as a collecting agent, thus these deposits could not be considered income. 3. Taxability of Various Funds: The Tribunal also addressed the taxability of various funds such as the Area Development Fund, Cane Development Fund, and others. It was noted that these funds were collected under Government directives and were to be utilized for specified purposes, often requiring the amounts to be made over to the Government. The Tribunal held that these funds did not bear the character of income as they were collected under legal obligations and retained for specific purposes. The Tribunal rejected the argument that these collections were akin to sales-tax collections in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that the amounts were retained from the purchase price payable to cane growers and were liabilities until utilized as directed. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that neither the non-refundable deposits nor the refundable deposits and various funds collected by the assessee could be treated as trading receipts or income. The assessments for the relevant years were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
