CIT v. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited

229 ITR 285High Court1998#5228 most cited

What is CIT v. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited authority for?

Amounts collected by an assessee under a statutory obligation and directed to be kept in a separate account for a specific purpose, such as a molasses storage fund, do not belong to the assessee and should be excluded from its total income.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd · 229 ITR 285 · Madras High Court · statutory obligation · molasses storage fund · excluded from total income · overriding title · Government regulation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 28Section 80-IASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 254(2)Section 36(1)(xii)

Issues it is cited on

section 33acsection 80hhesection 32asection 117section 210section 4asection 74section 73section 72section 115jasection 288section 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited

Aravali Power Comany Private Ltd., Jhajjar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in

ITA 4604/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 28

…ld be excluded from its total income. The ld AR submitted that the creation of sale is by the Government and the Government has regulated the sale proceeds. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited,[1998] 229 ITR 285 (Mad) ii) CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738(Mad) SLP dismissed in the case of CIT V. New Horizon Sugar Mills P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 397, relying upon the dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT V. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 398 (SC) iii) DCM Ltd. V. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR Del 408 iv) CIT V. Pandavapura Sahaka…

Aravali Power Company Private Limited, Jhajjar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in

ITA 4603/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 28

…ld be excluded from its total income. The ld AR submitted that the creation of sale is by the Government and the Government has regulated the sale proceeds. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited,[1998] 229 ITR 285 (Mad) ii) CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738(Mad) SLP dismissed in the case of CIT V. New Horizon Sugar Mills P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 397, relying upon the dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT V. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 398 (SC) iii) DCM Ltd. V. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR Del 408 iv) CIT V. Pandavapura Sahaka…

Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in

ITA 2561/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 28

…ld be excluded from its total income. The ld AR submitted that the creation of sale is by the Government and the Government has regulated the sale proceeds. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited,[1998] 229 ITR 285 (Mad) ii) CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738(Mad) SLP dismissed in the case of CIT V. New Horizon Sugar Mills P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 397, relying upon the dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT V. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 398 (SC) iii) DCM Ltd. V. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR Del 408 iv) CIT V. Pandavapura Sahaka…

Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in

ITA 2560/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 28

…ld be excluded from its total income. The ld AR submitted that the creation of sale is by the Government and the Government has regulated the sale proceeds. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited,[1998] 229 ITR 285 (Mad) ii) CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738(Mad) SLP dismissed in the case of CIT V. New Horizon Sugar Mills P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 397, relying upon the dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT V. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 398 (SC) iii) DCM Ltd. V. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR Del 408 iv) CIT V. Pandavapura Sahaka…

Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in

ITA 9105/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 28

…ld be excluded from its total income. The ld AR submitted that the creation of sale is by the Government and the Government has regulated the sale proceeds. The ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited,[1998] 229 ITR 285 (Mad) ii) CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 244 ITR 738(Mad) SLP dismissed in the case of CIT V. New Horizon Sugar Mills P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 397, relying upon the dismissal of SLP in the case of CIT V. Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 398 (SC) iii) DCM Ltd. V. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR Del 408 iv) CIT V. Pandavapura Sahaka…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

…ment. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the amount so set apart should not be treated as income. The Hon’ble Madras High Court noticed that an identical issue was adjudicated by it earlier in the case of CIT vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) (229 ITR 285). The relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Madras High court are extracted below:- “11. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. On a reference, a Division bench of this Court held that even before collection of the amount as directed by Central Government under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, the assessee was directed to keep this amount under…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2522/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

…ment. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the amount so set apart should not be treated as income. The Hon'ble Madras High Court noticed that an identical issue was adjudicated by it earlier in the case of CIT vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) (229 ITR 285). The relevant discussions made by Hon'ble Madras High court are extracted below:- “11. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. On a reference, a Division bench of this Court held that even before collection of the amount as directed by Central Government under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, the assessee was directed to keep this amount under a…

National Securities Depository Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1918/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenational Securities Depository Limited V. Pr.Cit-8 4Th Floor, A-Wing Room No. 611, 6Th Floor Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aadcn9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdae Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER National Securities Depository Limited v. Pr.CIT-8 4th Floor, A-Wing Room No. 611, 6th Floor Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 PAN: AADCN9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdae Department Represented by : Shri S. Srinivasu Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…on’ble Apex Court in the case National Rayon Corporation Vs. CIT, Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company (supra), Molasses Storage Fund DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291, we hold that the provisions of Section 115JB(b) are applicable to the facts of the instant case. Addition u/s 41: ITA No. 2741/Del/2017 : A.…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…on’ble Apex Court in the case National Rayon Corporation Vs. CIT, Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company (supra), Molasses Storage Fund DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291, we hold that the provisions of Section 115JB(b) are applicable to the facts of the instant case. Addition u/s 41: ITA No. 2741/Del/2017 : A.…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…on’ble Apex Court in the case National Rayon Corporation Vs. CIT, Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company (supra), Molasses Storage Fund DCM Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291, we hold that the provisions of Section 115JB(b) are applicable to the facts of the instant case. Addition u/s 41: ITA No. 2741/Del/2017 : A.…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

…nt so set apart should not be treated as income. The Hon’ble Madras High Court noticed that an identical issue was adjudicated by it earlier in the case of CIT vs. Salem Co-operative 15 National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development Sugar Mills Ltd (1998)(229 ITR 285). The relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Madras High court are extracted below:- “11. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. On a reference, a Division bench of this Court held that even before collection of the amount as directed by Central Government under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, the assessee was directed to keep this amount under a…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd vs. DCIT Circle I

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 924/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DRe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Court in CIT vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 215 (Cal) has held that contribution business expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in certain decisions including CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 229 ITR 285 (Mad). In view of several decisions taken note of by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order supporting the assessee’s contention, which have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any contrary decision, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. first appellate authority has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold th…

Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-I

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 63/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DRe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Court in CIT vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 215 (Cal) has held that contribution business expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in certain decisions including CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 229 ITR 285 (Mad). In view of several decisions taken note of by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order supporting the assessee’s contention, which have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any contrary decision, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. first appellate authority has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold th…

DCIT, Circle-1 vs. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 443/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DRe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Court in CIT vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 215 (Cal) has held that contribution business expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in certain decisions including CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 229 ITR 285 (Mad). In view of several decisions taken note of by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order supporting the assessee’s contention, which have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any contrary decision, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. first appellate authority has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold th…

Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 86/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akhelesh Kuamr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…High Court in CIT vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 215 (Cal) has held deduction as business expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in certain decisions including CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 229 ITR 285 (Mad). In view of several decisions taken note of by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order supporting the assessee’s contention, which have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any contrary decision, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. first appellate authority has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold…

DCIT, Circle-1 vs. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 442/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akhelesh Kuamr, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148

…High Court in CIT vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 215 (Cal) has held deduction as business expenditure. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in certain decisions including CIT vs. Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 229 ITR 285 (Mad). In view of several decisions taken note of by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order supporting the assessee’s contention, which have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any contrary decision, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. first appellate authority has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…ioner of Income Tax [2004] 192 CTR 0408, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd 2015:DHC:1459-DB ITA Nos. 371/2012 & 372/2012 Page 8 of 24 (1998) 229 ITR 285, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690, Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1995) 216 ITR 291. On the issue of Debt Redemption Reserve, again reliance is placed upon decision in National Rayon Corporation (supra) to the effect that the amount was neither a rese…