High Court Of Bombay
CIT vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
S.H. Kapadia & R.M.S. Khandeparkar, JJ.
ITA No. 333 of 2000
6th June, 2000
R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar, for the Appellant : Pramod Vaidya i/b A.N. Inamdar, for the Respondent
BY THE COURT
Admit. Respondents waive service. Since a short point is involved, the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Two questions have been raised in this appeal, which are as follows:
“(a) Whether non-refundable deposits collected by the assessee-society, out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the canegrowers, are trading receipts of the assessee-society?
(b) Whether interest on such non-refundable deposits, are trading receipts of the assesseesociety?”
4. On 4th May, 2000, the Division Bench on this Court (to which one of us, Kapadia J. is a party) in IT Ref. No. 449 of 1995 [CIT vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 275 : (2000) 245 ITR 498 (Bom)] has taken the view that the non-refundable deposit (NRD) constituted trading receipts of the assessee. In view of the above judgment, both the above questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 256 ITR 81]