THE COMMISSIONESR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PURE DRINKS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042143200129 April 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee on the sale of bottles is not a trading receipt. This decision was made by answering the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court relied on its separate order passed on the same day in the case of ITR No.30 of 1994, titled 'The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Munjal Gases, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana'. The ratio decidendi is that such excess amounts are not to be considered as income arising from the business. The operative direction is that the appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on September 26, 2000. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1988-89 and concerns the assessee, M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee upon the sale of bottles constitutes a trading receipt. The High Court is considering this appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee on sale of bottles is not a trading receipt? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of trading receipts). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The decision appears to be based on a precedent. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's contention is implicitly that the excess of security deposits over refunds should be treated as a trading receipt, as they are challenging the ITAT's decision to the contrary. They are arguing that the ITAT erred in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No.95 of 2001

Date of Decision: 29.04.2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

…Appellant Versus M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., New Delhi

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the appellant.

M/s Akshay Bhan & Aalok Mittal, Advocates, for the respondent.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) arises out of an order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 26.09.2000 in respect of Assessment Year 1988-89. The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that excess of ‘security deposits’ over ‘refunds’ received by the assessee on sale of bottles is not a trading receipt”

The said question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by this Court vide separate order of today passed in ITR No.30 of 1994 titled ‘The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Munjal Gases, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana’. Kumar Vimal 2013.05.07 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

2

Accordingly, the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in terms of Munjal Gases case (supra).

(HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE

29.04.

2013

(RITU BAHRI) Vimal Vimal Vimal Vimal

JUDGE

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.07 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →