Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT

270 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2004#587 most cited

What is Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT authority for?

Amounts collected by an assessee as an agent or for a predefined purpose are diverted by an overriding title and do not form part of the assessee's income. Such amounts, even if refundable on contingencies, are not considered uncertain and create a ripening obligation.

166

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT · 270 ITR 1 · income diversion by overriding title · assessee income · amounts collected as agent · receipts for specific purpose · contingent refundable amounts · obligation crystallization · income recognition

Also reported as

139 Taxmann 434
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 143indiainterest

Judgments citing Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT

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

…without disregarding the statutory language. Depending upon the nature and character of the deposits/payments, should be given to hold whether or not the amount received was income/profit. 32. In Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors., (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC), the word 'income' or 'profit' was examined and interpreted. In the said case, issue arose whether deposits/payments made in different heads/parties was diversion of income at source or not and whether the deposits/funds have to be included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposits/payment…

Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2287/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2286 & 2287/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 M/S Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Virudhunagar Range, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Virudhunagar. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaccs 1480 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 80G

…Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 and also the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 562. The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 270 ITR 1. 4. On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee collected charity / mahamai from the customers who purchased the goods from the assessee. The Ld. D.R. further clarified that no charity / mahamai was collected from the persons who has no business dealing with the assessee. Admittedly, chari…

Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2286/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2286 & 2287/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 M/S Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Virudhunagar Range, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Virudhunagar. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaccs 1480 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 80G

…Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 and also the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 562. The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (2004) 270 ITR 1. 4. On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee collected charity / mahamai from the customers who purchased the goods from the assessee. The Ld. D.R. further clarified that no charity / mahamai was collected from the persons who has no business dealing with the assessee. Admittedly, chari…

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

…lished doctrine of ‘diversion of income by overriding title’. In support of his argument, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the following judgements: 1. CIT vs Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (229 ITR 285)(Mad) 2. Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs CIT (270 ITR 1)(SC) 3. CIT vs Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd (116 ITR 60)(SC) It was further submitted that in any case, opinion expressed by CBDT or by MOCA is not binding upon the appellate authorities including the Tribunal. If as per the Income-tax law, the impugned amount is not in the nature of income, then it cannot be brought to tax as income in the hands of…

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

…lished doctrine of ‘diversion of income by overriding title’. In support of his argument, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the following judgements: 1. CIT vs Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (229 ITR 285)(Mad) 2. Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs CIT (270 ITR 1)(SC) 3. CIT vs Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd (116 ITR 60)(SC) It was further submitted that in any case, opinion expressed by CBDT or by MOCA is not binding upon the appellate authorities including the Tribunal. If as per the Income-tax law, the impugned amount is not in the nature of income, then it cannot be brought to tax as income in the hands of…

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

…these factors together but once the accrual takes place, on the conduct of the parties subsequent to the year of closing an income which has accrued cannot be made " no income ". 32. In Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors., (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC), the word ‘income’ or ‘profit’ was examined and interpreted. In the said case, issue arose whether deposits/payments made in different heads/parties was diversion of income at source or not and whether the deposits/funds have to be included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposit…