9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. [1998 (8) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court], Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal Gases P. Ltd. (1990 (5) TMI 13 - DELHI High Court), CIT Vs. Doongaji & Co. Distillery (2005 (2) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court) . In favour of assessee. - ITR No.30 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2013 - Hemant Gupta And Ritu Bahri,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, For the Respondent : M/s Akshay Bhan Aalok Mittal, Advocates, ORDER Hemant Gupta, J. By way of present reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) vide its order dated 15.03.1994 has referred the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undable to the customers. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier orders in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The Revenue s reference in respect of assessment year 1981-92 bearing ITR No.69 of 1989 has been answered against the Revenue on 14.11.2006 relying upon a judgment of Madras High Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. 241 ITR 229. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon the Supreme Court judgment reported as CIT Vs. Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. AIR 1964 SC 1709, to contend that the security amount in similar circumstances has been held to be trading receipt. In the aforesaid case, the amount received by an assessee, who was a distiller and seller of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a deposit only and not consideration for the sale, and that deposit was one which was required to be returned as and when the bottles were returned. It was not the intention of the assessee to use the amount of the deposit to buy back the bottles which had not been sold in the first place. We do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. The tax case petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Doongaji Co. Distillery case (supra) while examining similar question i.e. question No.4 observed as under: 20. It is not in dispute that though the assessee used to collect the money from each customer against each bottle sold to him it was in the nature of a deposit with the assessee and on fulfillment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned in order to entitle the wholesaler to the refund, nor had a refund ever been refused. The said buy-back scheme of the Government to ensure the return of bottles is intended to relieve the scarcity of bottles. 6.4.3. The distiller was assessed to income tax on the balance of amounts, viz., the additional sums left after the refunds were made. Then the question arose whether the balance of amounts of these additional sums left after the refunds were made is assessable? Thus, it was held that mere fact that charges were collected for security deposit in Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd, would not by itself render the said charges as security deposit, as the same is part of trading transaction and return of bottles was necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
