CIT v. Bazpur Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd.

172 ITR 321Supreme Court of India1988#7875 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bazpur Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…questions of law framed by the assessee are answered against it and in favour of the Revenue. Appeals are accordingly rejected. 10. The ld. CIT-DR/Sr. DR also placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., reported in [1988] 172 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 13. If the provisions of the unamended bye-law are to be applied, it is clear that these amounts which were deducted by the respondent from the price payable to its members on account of supply of sugarcane were deducted in the course of the trading operations of the respondent and th…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…questions of law framed by the assessee are answered against it and in favour of the Revenue. Appeals are accordingly rejected. 10. The ld. CIT-DR/Sr. DR also placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., reported in [1988] 172 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 13. If the provisions of the unamended bye-law are to be applied, it is clear that these amounts which were deducted by the respondent from the price payable to its members on account of supply of sugarcane were deducted in the course of the trading operations of the respondent and th…

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…stipulation, or of such an arrangement in general; the same being not relevant for deciding the taxability of an income, for which, it is the nature of the income, howsoever derived, that alone is relevant (CIT v. Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 321 (SC). We are, in 30 Asst. CIT vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. any case, placing forth an argument for its consideration. It also fortifies the view that the receipt is not on capital, but revenue, account. There is then also the issue of the categorization of the capital gains as short- term or long-term on the basis of the length of time…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…e-laws of the society, the allegation that the assessee has accepted any deposits is untenable, since it is the beyond the scope of its object. It is submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bajpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. reported in 172 ITR 321 have held that, the credits appearing in the account of its customers, cannot be regarded as deposit 16 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 within the meaning of “deposit”, despite the fact such amounts were reflected in the accounts as deposits. A copy of the aforesaid judgment is placed at pages 74 - 83 of Paper book. In this very judgment it was h…

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…e-laws of the society, the allegation that the assessee has accepted any deposits is untenable, since it is the beyond the scope of its object. It is submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bajpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. reported in 172 ITR 321 have held that, the credits appearing in the account of its customers, cannot be regarded as deposit 16 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 within the meaning of “deposit”, despite the fact such amounts were reflected in the accounts as deposits. A copy of the aforesaid judgment is placed at pages 74 - 83 of Paper book. In this very judgment it was h…

WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(EXEMPTION)CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while both the stay applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1727/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – La, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – Iii, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [Pan: Aaalw 0078 N] Vs A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I, Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(B)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A.T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – LA, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [PAN: AAALW 0078 N] VS A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Mi…

WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(EXEMPTION)CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while both the stay applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – La, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – Iii, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [Pan: Aaalw 0078 N] Vs A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I, Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(B)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A.T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – LA, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [PAN: AAALW 0078 N] VS A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Mi…

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed and

WA/72/2018HC Karnataka31 Aug 2018

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT APPEAL No. 72/2018 (T-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL Nos. 387 – 485/2018 (T-RES) W.A.No.72/2018 in W.P.No.33176/2017: BETWEEN: 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Finance Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2. Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)-4.3 Dvo-4, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya-2, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 047. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commerc…

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed and

ITA/72/2018HC Karnataka31 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT APPEAL No. 72/2018 (T-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL Nos. 387 – 485/2018 (T-RES) W.A.No.72/2018 in W.P.No.33176/2017: BETWEEN: 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Finance Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2. Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)-4.3 Dvo-4, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya-2, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 047. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Commerc…

W.B.CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCCERS FEDERATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2361/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us The Ld.Ar Submits That The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar & Identical In Facts. Therefore, Taking Into Consideration The Submissions & With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By A Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DR

…ve to be included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposits/payments is determinative and relevant. Reference was made to the earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Bazpur Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC) where the amounts credited to loss equalization and capital redemption reserve fund were held to be income/profit. It was held in the said case that the assessee had proprietary interest over the fund and enjoyed dominion. It was observed that the line of enquiry must focus on ascertaining the true nature and character of the receipt and thi…

NUMERO UNO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1713/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…tended by the assessee that the money received was neither loan nor deposit, thus section 269SS was not applicable. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of 3 AY: 2006-07 the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bajpur Cooperative Sugar Factory, (1988) 172 ITR 321 and the decision of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s. Sharad Holding Leasing Private Limited Vs. ACIT, (95) ITD 336. However, the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax did not agree with the assessee. The contention of the assessee, to grant immunity from penalty invoking section 273B of the Act, on the ground that the assess…

M/S JAIBHARATH MILLS PVT.LTD., vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA/385/2009HC Karnataka18 Mar 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10Section 19(1)Section 2Section 260ASection 8(1)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. NOS.385-386/2009 BETWEEN : M/s.Jai Bharath Mills Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: Syndicate House, Manipal – 576 104, Represented by its Director, Sri.Muddanna, Aged about 45 years, Son of Sri.Chandu Poojar. ...APPELLANT (By Sri.S.Partha Sarathi & Sri.Vijaya Kumar Punna, Advs.) AND : The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 1, Canara Towers, 4th Floor, Opp. Taluk Office, M.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S D.T.T.D.C. LTD. NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/166/2001HC Delhi20 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Respondent: ITAs 166/01, 161/04, 320/04 & ITR 30-33/1997
Section 256(1)Section 617

…e included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposits/payments is determinative and relevant. Reference was made to the earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Bazpur Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC) where the amounts credited to loss equalization and capital redemption reserve fund were held to be income/profit. It was held in the said case that the assessee had proprietary interest over the fund and enjoyed dominion. It was observed that the line of enquiry must focus on ascertaining the true nature and character of the receipt a…

THE K.C.P. LTD vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

C.A. No.-007652-007652 - 1996Supreme Court09 Aug 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
Section 256(1)Section 3

…To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Sinclair Murray and Co.P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta - (1974) 97 ITR 615 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P.-II Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. - (1988) 172 ITR 321. In these cases it has been the consistent view of this Court that if a receipt is a trading receipt the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as a trading receipt. It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under whi…