THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR HOLY CROSS SCHOOL, CANTONMENT, AURANGABAD Vs. SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, KILLARI, TQ. AUSA, DISTRICT LATUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. The issue, "Whether a difference between the market price of sale of a sugar and price of the sale of a small quantity of sugar by a sugar factory to it's producer members and non -member suppliers, is taxable in the hands of the sugar factory under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - has been decided by us in favour of an assessee and against the revenue in CIT Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2008, decided on 10.2.2012). Hence, that question is not required to be decided again in this appeal.

(2.) THE other question of law that is urged by learned ASG is,

(3.) IN Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. A.I.T. Kolhapur [ : (2004) 12 SCC 1], the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the correctness of the view taken by this Court that the non -refundable deposits of the members of sugar factory were to be treated as the revenue receipts and income of the sugar factory. The Supreme Court considered bye -laws of the sugar factory and in particular, bye -law Nos. 60, 61 -A and 60 -B, which are part of the standard bye laws of almost all the sugar factories in the Maharashtra. After considering the bye -laws, the Supreme Court has held that the non -refundable deposits by a sugar factory from it's members could not to be treated as an income of the assessee. Shri Sharma, learned ASG, however, submitted that though the deposits cannot be treated as an income of the sugar factory in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (supra), the interest earned on those deposits must be regarded as an income of the sugar factory. We are unable to agree.