- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Cit v. Soft Beverage (P) Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessment year is 1987-88. The assessee is a company manufacturing soft drinks under the name Torino. In assessment proceedings the assessing officer found an increase in the security deposit in respect of bottles and crates; the assessee had also claimed depreciation on those bottles and crates. On that basis the assessing officer treated the receipt as a trade receipt. The Commissioner of Appeals confirmed that view. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessing officer's view, accepted the assessee's contention following an earlier decision in the assessee's own case, and the matter was referred to the court. The referred question is quoted in the opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the increase in the credit balance in the deposit on containers account should not be regarded as partaking the character of the trading receipts of the assessee?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CIT v. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 229 (Mad) | The deposit received in respect of bottles/crates is required to be returned as and when the bottles are returned and does not constitute the income of the assessee. | The court followed this decision and held that the Tribunal's finding that the deposit did not constitute the assessee's income was correct; accordingly the question was answered in favour of the assessee. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the Tribunal's conclusion in light of an earlier decision (CIT v. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd.) which held that container deposits must be returned when bottles are returned and do not constitute income. Relying on that precedent and the Tribunal's finding, the court accepted the Tribunal's view that the increase in the deposit-on-containers account did not partake the character of trading receipts for the assessee.
Holding and Implications
The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Direct effect: The increase in the credit balance in the deposit-on-containers account is not treated as trading receipt for the assessee for the assessment year in question. The opinion follows existing precedent and does not purport to lay down a new rule beyond that precedent.
The question referred is,
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the increase in the credit balance in the deposit on containers account should not be regarded as partaking the character of the trading receipts of the assessee ?"
The assessment year is 1987-88.
2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks in the name of Torino. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer found that there was increase in the security deposit in respect of bottles and crates, and the assessee also has claimed depreciation in respect of those bottles and crates and on that score, the assessing officer treated the receipt as a trade receipt.
2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks in the name of Torino. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer found that there was increase in the security deposit in respect of bottles and crates, and the assessee also has claimed depreciation in respect of those bottles and crates and on that score, the assessing officer treated the receipt as a trade receipt.
3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Appeals confirmed the same. However, the Tribunal rejected the views taken by the assessing officer and following the earlier decision of the assessees own case has accepted the contention of the assessees. Hence, the assessment now referred to.
3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Appeals confirmed the same. However, the Tribunal rejected the views taken by the assessing officer and following the earlier decision of the assessees own case has accepted the contention of the assessees. Hence, the assessment now referred to.
4. The question similar to the one of the present case has been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 229 (Mad) and this court held that the deposit so received by the assessee required to be returned as and when the bottles were returned and the finding of the Tribunal that such deposit did not constitute the income of the assessee as correct, and thereby answered the question in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.
4. The question similar to the one of the present case has been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Madurai Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 229 (Mad) and this court held that the deposit so received by the assessee required to be returned as and when the bottles were returned and the finding of the Tribunal that such deposit did not constitute the income of the assessee as correct, and thereby answered the question in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.
5. Following the decision as stated above, the question referred to us in the present case is also answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.
5. Following the decision as stated above, the question referred to us in the present case is also answered in favour of the assessee, and against the revenue.
Alert