THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. ASHOK SAH. SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the questions raised were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Income Tax Reports 1, as well as this Court's judgment in Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 1999. The Supreme Court had distinguished the rules applicable in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the Court found that deductions on account of non-refundable deposits were not liable to be added to the income. Furthermore, provisions for interest on non-refundable deposits were liable to be deducted from the income of the Society, in view of the rules prevailing in Maharashtra. The Court answered all the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
This case involves a reference by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik) to the Bombay High Court concerning an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision. The assessee is Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The dispute pertains to assessment years not explicitly stated but relating to additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) which were subsequently deleted by the ITAT. The additions in question were Rs. 4,91,855/- for non-refundable deposits and Rs. 14,37,975/- for interest on these deposits. The ITAT relied on a Special Bench decision of the ITAT Pune in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd., which in turn was based on Supreme Court judgments concerning similar co-operative sugar mills.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting additions of non-refundable deposits (Rs. 4,91,855/-) and interest on non-refundable deposits (Rs. 14,37,975/-) by holding them not to be trading receipts, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (172 ITR 321 and 177 ITR 469) and a Special Bench ITAT decision in Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR 78-AT). 2. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that an order under Section 154 passed by the AO could not be sustained in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., even though the AO's order was passed before the ITAT Special Bench decision in Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. 3. Whether the ITAT was right in holding the issue to be debatable despite the Supreme Court's decision in Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the funds and deposits collected from cane growers were not trading receipts and that provisions for interest on non-refundable deposits were deductible based on the rules applicable in Maharashtra, citing Supreme Court judgments in Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. and this Court's decision in Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 1999. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the additions and that the issue was not debatable in light of the Supreme Court's decision. They also questioned the ITAT's reasoning regarding the Section 154 order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.150 OF 1997 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.150 OF 1997 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.150 OF 1997 Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik ...Applicant V/s. Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ashoknagar, Tal.Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar ...Respondents. Mr.Parag Vyas with A.S.Rao for the Applicant. Mr.Pramod Vaidya for the Respondent. CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 5th July, 2005. DATE : 5th July, 2005. DATE : 5th July, 2005. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per J.H.Bhatia,J.) 1. In this Reference, the Revenue has raised the following questions of law for opinion of this Court. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT relying on the Special Bench of ITAT Pune’s decision in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR 78-AT), was right in deleting the following additions by holding that the various funds and deposits collected by the assessee society out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bazpur Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. 172 ITR 321 and 177 ITR 469 ?" CNR No : HCBM020043151997 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:34
: 2 : 1.Non refundable deposits Rs. 4,91,855/- 2.Interest on NRD Rs.14,37,975/- 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the order u/s 154 passed by the A.O. in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. 172 ITR 321 cannot be sustained though the same was passed before the ITAT, Special Bench, Pune’s decision in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. dated 16/1/1992 was received?" 3."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the issue involved was debatable inspite of Supreme Court’s decision on the issue in the case of Bazpur Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. (172 ITR 321)?" 2. The question of Non-refundable deposits and interest on Non-refundable deposits is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income n Commissioner of Income n Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Tax v. Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 270 Income Tax Reports 1 as also judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.9 of 1999. The Supreme Court has distinguished the rules in Maharashtra and U.P. In view of these two authorities, it is clear that the deductions on account of Non-refundable deposits are not liable to be Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:34
: 3 : added in the income and provisions for interest on Non-refundable Deposits are liable to be deducted from the income of the Society in view of the rules obtained in Maharashtra. 3. In the result, we answer the questions in affirmative, that is in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the Reference is disposed of. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 06:20:34 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026