2005 (8) TMI 66 - HC - Income Tax

Sugar industry - Whether, Tribunal relying upon the Special Bench in the case of Shri Chartrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was right in deleting the additions made 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 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? - Appeal is partly allowed - The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent of non-refundable deposits, interest on non-refundable deposits, C.M. Relief Fund, Hutment Fund, Education Fund and Shri Y.B. Chavan Memorial Trust Fund is maintained. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal to the extent of Cane Development Fund and Area Development Fund is set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Income-tax Act regarding non-refundable deposits and various funds collected by an assessee-society.
2. Application of judicial precedents in determining the treatment of different funds and deposits in the income of the assessee.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay delivered a judgment in an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting additions made on account of non-refundable deposits and various funds collected by the assessee-society, considering them not as trading receipts. The court noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that non-refundable and refundable deposits are not trading receipts under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules in Maharashtra. It was also established that interest payable on such deposits is an expenditure of the society. Additionally, deductions on account of Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Y.B. Chavan Memorial Trust Fund, Hutment Fund, and Education Fund were not considered trading receipts. The court referred to previous judgments to support these findings.

Regarding the Cane Development Fund, the Supreme Court held that the amounts realized from it are income for the assessee-sugar factory and should be treated as such. However, for the Area Development Fund, as there was insufficient information on its utilization, the court directed the Tribunal to reevaluate this fund based on all relevant facts and directives. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed. The order of the Tribunal was maintained for certain funds, while it was set aside for the Cane Development Fund and Area Development Fund, with directions for a fresh determination on the latter. The Tribunal was instructed to consider all material, including bye-laws and government directives, in reevaluating the Area Development Fund. No costs were awarded in this matter.