Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.02 seconds)
Somaiya Orgeno-Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 December, 1993 cites

Keshkal Co-Operative Marketing ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 April, 1986

Unfortunately, this subsequent judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has not referred to its own earlier judgment in the case of Keshkal Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 437. In the case of Jiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 182 (MP), the assessee ran a sugar factory. It credited certain amounts out of the sale price of molasses to a specific account for molasses storage fund to be utilised for the erection of adequate storage facilities in accordance with the Molasses Control Order. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the claim of the assessee that the sum was diverted by overriding title. The Madhya Pradesh High Court appears to have emphasised the fact that as the Molasses Storage Fund vests in the assessee, the assessee cannot claim that the amount directed to that fund in any assessment year is not a part of its income although the assessee is not free to utilised that fund in any manner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 25 - J S Verma - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane ... on 16 October, 1992

In its earlier case CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 475, the Karnataka High Court also relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Keshkal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 437. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in that case considered the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, under which the assessee which was a co-operative marketing society was statutorily required to divert a part of its income as set out in the said Act for the creation of a statutory deposit (reserve) fund which, after its creation, came within the domain of the Registrar and was to be invested and utilised only in such manner and on such terms and conditions as might be laid down by the Registrar. The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that this was a statutory diversion of income. The creation of the reserve fund and control over it remained with the Registrar. Hence, the amount which was so deposited in the reserve fund by the assessee did not comprise the income of the assessee. It was an amount diverted by overriding title under the statutory provision of section 43(2). The amount was not available for the use of the assessee-society at its option.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 33 - Full Document
1   2 Next