9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts cannot be treated as income of the assessee Society. It has also taken into consideration that there are two kinds of deposits namely special deposit and general deposit. It has found that the obligation to repay is stood annexed to the deposited amount at the time it was received by the assessee subject of course to the occurrence on contingency satisfied by bye laws itself - Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Shakar Karkhana Ltd [2008 -TMI - 6148 - SUPREME Court] - 266 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2009 - Petitioner Counsel :- A.N.Mahajan,A.Kumar,B.J.Agarwal,D. Awasthi,G. Krishna,R.K. Upadhyay,S.Chopra Respondent Counsel :- Malay Shukla Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J. 1. Income Tax Appeal No.266 of 2000 The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years 1972-73 to 1979-80. Appeal No.267 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1972-73, Appeal No.300 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1973-74, Appeal No.292 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1975-76, Appeal No.293 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1976-77, Appeal No.294 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and Appeal No.297 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1978-79. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement as was jointly agreed by learned counsel for the parties. For the sake of convenience the question of law involved in Appeal No.266 of 2000 relating to the assessment year 1972-73 is reproduced below. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de order under challenge. Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the department and Sri Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department contends that in view of the earlier judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bajipur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 321, the order of the Tribunal holding that the said amount is capital receipt and not income receipt, is not justified. Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-respondent, on the other hand, submits that the controversy involved in the present case stands set at rest by a subsequent judgement of Apex Court in the case of S. Sahkari Sakahar Karkhana L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue at this stage is that on the findings recorded by the two authorities below, the case is covered by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Bajpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. We have given careful consideration to the above submission of the revenue and also examined the relevant bye laws as reproduced in the order of the CIT (A). Bye law no.36 provides in no uncertain terms that if any amount is found surplus, the said amount shall be refunded to the member in whose account the amount has been found surplus. In our considered opinion the said bye law clinches the issue and it clearly demonstrates that the money received by the Society was never treated as income of the Society and it remained all the time the deposit of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
