{"id":117602,"date":"1989-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989"},"modified":"2019-02-14T04:15:21","modified_gmt":"2019-02-13T22:45:21","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1866, \t\t 1989 SCR (2) 840<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1866\t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 840\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 240 JT 1989 (2)\t562\n\n\nACT:\n    Income  Tax Act, 1961:  Section  36(1)(iii)--Cooperative\nSociety-Amounts\t deposited by members in  Loss\tEqualisation\nand Capital Redemption Fund--Whether deduction admissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent-assessee is a co-operative society\trun-\nning  a sugar mill. With a view to inducing its\t members  to\nmake  further contribution to its capital it incorporated  a\nbye-law\t which\tprovided for the establishment\tof  a  'Loss\nEqualisation  &\t Capital  Redemption  Reserve  Fund'.  Every\nproducer-shareholder  was required to deposit every year  an\namount to this fund which was to be utilised for the purpose\nof  making  the\t partly paid shares fully  paid,  and  after\ndefraying the loan taken from the Industrial Finance  Corpo-\nration\tthe balance was to be refunded to the  members.\t The\nmoney available in the Fund was utilised by the society\t for\nthe purpose of its business. A part of the amount was  even-\ntually\tutilised for converting the partly paid shares\tinto\nfully paid shares. It was then decided by the society to pay\ninterest on the balance available in the Fund. The  interest\nthus paid to its members was sought to be claimed as  deduc-\ntion in computing the income of the assessee.\n    The\t Income Tax Officer rejected the claim holding\tthat\nthe amount did not represent loans taken by the assessee .or\ncapital borrowed for the purpose of its business. The Appel-\nlate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the disallowance.\t The\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the second appeal  of\nthe assessee and held that it was not necessary that borrow-\ning must contain an element of payment of interest and\tthat\neven  if  a deposit was made by the members of\tthe  society\nwhich  waS utilised for the purpose of the business  of\t the\nassessee,  the\tfunds represented by such deposit  would  be\n'capital  borrowed' for the purpose of s. 36(1)(iii) of\t the\nIncome\tTax Act, 1961. The High Court agreed with  the\tview\ntaken  by the Appellate Tribunal and answered the  questions\nreferred  to  it in favour of the assessee and\tagainst\t the\nRevenue.\n    While  allowing the appeals and answering the  questions\nin the negative in favour of the Revenue, this Court.\n841\n    HELD: (1) Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nprovides  that in computing the income chargeable under\t the\nhead 'profits and gains of business or profession' a  deduc-\ntion  shall  be allowed of the amount of  interest  paid  in\nrespect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business\nor profession. [845G,H]\n    (2)\t The  words 'borrowed money' should not be  given  a\nstrained  meaning  and it should be  considered\t whether  in\nordinary  commercial  usage the relationship was that  of  a\nborrower and lender and the transactions'were loan  transac-\ntions.\tTo  constitute borrowed money there must be  a\treal\nborrowing and a real lending. [846B,D]\n    (3) It is apparent that the deposits made by the members\ncannot\tbe regarded as loans advanced by the members to\t the\nassessee. There was never any intention between the assessee\nand its members to treat the deposits made by the members as\nloans and that the relationship between the assessee and the\nmembers should be that of borrower and lender., [847F,G]\n    Port  of  London  Authority v.  Commissioner  of  Inland\nRevenue, [1922] 2 KB 599 (CA); Commissioner of Inland  Reve-\nnue  v.\t Port  of London Authority, [1923]  AC\t507;  Inland\nRevenue Commissioner v. Rowntree & Co. Ltd., [1948] 1 ALL ER\n482  (CA);  Commissioner of Income-tax,\t Gujarat  v.  Rajkot\nSeeds, Oil & Bullion Merchants Association Ltd.,<\/a> [1975]\t 101\nITR 748; Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Central Calcut-\nta  v. Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd., [1954] 25  ITR\t192;\nBombay Steam Navigation Co. [1953]; Private Ltd. v.  Commis-\nsioner\tof  Income-tax Bombay, [1965] 56 ITR 52\t and  Madhav\nPrasad\tJatia v. Commissioner of Income-tax  Uttar  Pradesh,<\/a>\n[1979] 118 ITR 200, referred to.\n    (4)\t A loan necessarily supposes a return of  the  money\nloaned.\t The circumstance that there was no  certainty\tthat\nany balance would remain for refund to the members would  in\nitself\tindicate that the deposits could not be regarded  as\nloans. [847G,H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1358-61
\nof 1979.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.78 of the  Allaha-
\nbad High Court in I.T.R. No. 114\/78.\n<\/p>\n
B .B. Ahuja, K.C. Dua and Miss. A. Subhashini for the appel-
\nlants.\n<\/p>\n
842<\/span><\/p>\n
    S.C.  Manchanda, Mrs. A.K. Verma and Joel Pares for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    PATHAK, CJ. These appeals by special leave are  directed
\nagainst the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad  dispos-
\ning of an Income-tax Reference in favour of the assessee and
\nagainst the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t assessee is a co-operative society running a  sugar
\nmill. For the assessment year 1968-69 it claimed payment  of
\ninterest amounting to Rs. 1,81,7 16. This was interest\tpaid
\nto  the accounts of its members, who had  deposited  certain
\namounts with the assessee in accordance with Bye-law No.  50
\nand  it was debited by the assessee to its profit  and\tloss
\naccount. In the initial years of the working of the Society,
\ncertain\t partly\t paid  shares were allotted  to\t its  farmer
\nmembers.  With\ta  view to inducing these  members  to\tmake
\nfurther contribution to the capital of the Society,  bye-law
\nNo. 50 was incorporated in the Bye-laws of the Society.\t The
\nbye-law as amended provides:\n<\/p>\n
“50.  There  shall  be established a  ‘Loss  Equalisation  &
\nCapital\t Redemption  Reserve  Fund’ in\tthe  society.  Every
\nproducer-shareholder shall deposit every year a sum not less
\nthan 0.32 paise and not more than 0.48 paise per quintal  of
\nthe  sugarcane\tsupplied by him to the society,\t as  may  be
\ndetermined by the Board until the shares to be subscribed by
\nthe  members are fully paid-up. The amount standing  to\t the
\ncredit\tof this fund presently or to be credited in  future,
\nshall  be used for making the partly paid shares fully\tpaid
\nup. The balance of the said amount shall be refunded to\t the
\nmembers\t soon  after the present loan  from  the  Industrial
\nCorporation  of India is repaid, whereafter the\t fund  shall
\ncease to exist.”\n<\/p>\n
    The money available in the ‘Loss Equalisation and  Capi-
\ntal  Redemption Reserve Fund’ was utilised by  the  assessee
\nfor  the purpose of its business. A part of the\t amount\t was
\nalso utilised for converting the partly paid up shares\tinto
\nfully  paid  up shares. On 8 September, 1967  the  Board  of
\nDirectors  of  the Society decided in their meeting  to\t pay
\ninterest  at  6% on the balance available in  the  aforesaid
\nFund  to its various members to whom the balance  money\t be-
\nlonged.\t It was on this account that the Society claimed  an
\namount of Rs. 1,18,716 for the assessment year 1968-69.\n<\/p>\n
843<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t claim\twas rejected by the Income Tax\tOfficer.  He
\ntook  the view that the amounts deposited by the members  of
\nthe Society in the ‘Loss Equalisation and Capital Redemption
\nReserve Fund’ did not represent loans taken by the  assessee
\nbut  constituted  a contribution by the members\t to  convert
\npartly\tpaid  up shares into fully paid up shares  and\tthey
\ncould not be considered as capital borrowed for the  purpose
\nof  its business. He held that s. 36(1)(iii) of the  Income-
\ntax  Act did not apply to such interest and that it was\t not
\nadmissible  as a deduction in computing the total income  of
\nthe  assessee. For the assessment years 1969-70\t to  1972-73
\nthe claim to deduction on this account was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      1969-70\t\t  ...\t    Rs. 1,34,609\n      1970-71\t\t  ...\t    Rs. 1,34,609\n      1971-72\t\t  ...\t    Rs. 1,34,609\n      1972-73\t\t  ...\t    Rs. 1,34,609\n<\/pre>\n
The Income Tax Officer took the same view for these  assess-
\nment years as he did for the assessment year 1968-69.
\n    In\tappeals\t preferred  by the  assessee  the  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the disallow-
\nance  for  the assessment year 1968-69 on  the\tground\tthat
\nBye-law No. 50 did not provide for the refund of the  amount
\nstanding to the credit of the members at any time before the
\npayment of the loan to the Industrial Finance Corporation of
\nIndia, that the loan was still outstanding on 30 June  1967,
\nthe last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment
\nyear  1968-69, and moreover the Bye-law did not provide\t for
\npayment\t of interest at all. He observed that the  Directors
\ncould not pay any interest unless the Bye-law was amended by
\nthe  members of the assessee. He observed that the  interest
\npaid must be regarded as an exgratia payment to the producer
\nmembers of the society who had contributed to the Fund,\t and
\nthat it was not made for the purpose of the business of\t the
\nassessee or on the ground of commercial expediency. The same
\norder was passed by the Appellate ASsistant Commissioner  on
\nthe appeals for the remaining years.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tsecond\tappeals filed by the assessee  for  all\t the
\nassessment years the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that
\nthe amount standing to the credit of the ‘Loss\tEqualisation
\nand  Capital Redemption Reserve Fund’ which was utilised  by
\nthe  assessee  for the purpose of its  business\t represented
\nmoneys\tborrowed  for the purpose of its business  and\tthat
\ninterest  paid\ton such moneys was  eligible  for  deduction
\nunder
\n844<\/span>
\ns.  36(1)(iii)\tof the Income-tax Act, 1961.  The  Appellate
\nTribunal  negatived the contention of the Revenue that\tonly
\nsuch deposits could constitute ‘capital borrowed’ within the
\nmeaning\t of  s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act which  were  initially
\nborrowed  with the stipulation to pay interest thereon.\t The
\nAppellate  Tribunal  observed that the\texpression  ‘capital
\nborrowed’  had\tnot been defined in the Income-tax  Act\t and
\nthat  its  ordinary  meaning would have to  be\tgathered  in
\nconstruing the meaning of s. 36(1)(iii). It said that it was
\nnot  necessary\tthat borrowing must contain  an\t element  of
\npayment\t of interest and that even if a deposit was made  by
\nthe  members of the society which was utilised for the\tpur-
\nposes of the business of the assessee, the funds represented
\nby such deposit would be ‘capital borrowed’ for the purposes
\nof  s.\t36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate  Tribunal\talso
\nrecorded  that\tit was not disputed that the  deposits\twere
\ntaken  for  the\t purposes of the business.  In\tthe  circum-
\nstances, the Appellate Tribunal held that when the Board  of
\nDirectors of the assessee considered it proper to pay inter-
\nest on those deposits, such interest was admissible under s.
\n36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    During  the\t heating of the appeals for  the  assessment
\nyears 197071 and 197 1-72, it was pointed out by the Revenue
\nthat  the  auditors of the assessee had\t observed  in  their
\naudit  report  that  the payment of interest  on  the  ‘Loss
\nEqualisation and Capital Redemption Reserve Fund’ should not
\nhave been made by the assessee in view of s. 57 of the Uttar
\nPradesh Co-operative Societies’ Act, which reads:
\n“Fund  not to be divided: Except as  otherwise\tspecifically
\nprovided  in this Act, no part of the Funds other  than\t the
\nnet  profits of a co-operative society shall be paid by\t way
\nof  bonus  or dividend or otherwise  distributed  among\t its
\nmembers:\n<\/p>\n
\t Provided that a member may be paid remuneration  on
\nsuch  scale  as\t may be laid down in the bye  laws  for\t any
\nservices rendered by him to the co-operative society.”\n<\/p>\n
    The Appellate Tribunal held that s. 57 was not  relevant
\nas  the\t payment  of interest to the  shareholders,  on\t the
\namounts deposited by them, did not represent any payment  by
\nthe Society by way of bonus or dividend or otherwise, of any
\npart of its funds other than its net profits. The  Appellate
\nTribunal also observed that the interest paid by the  asses-
\nsee to the ‘Loss Equalisation and Capital Redemption Reserve
\nFund’  was met from out of the net profits of the  assessee.
\nIt was found that the assessee had sufficient income out  of
\nwhich the interest
\n845<\/span>
\ncould  be  paid by it. For these reasons, it held  that\t the
\npayment\t of interest was not affected by s. 57 of the  Uttar
\nPradesh Co-operative Societies Act.\n<\/p>\n
    At\tthe instance of the Revenue the following two  ques-
\ntions in respect of the five assessment years were  referred
\nby the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court at Allahabad for
\nits opinion.\n<\/p>\n
“1. Whether the credit balances in the Loss Equalisation and
\nCapital Redemption Reserve Fund which were actually used  by
\nthe  assessee for the purposes of its  business\t represented
\ncapital\t borrowed  by the assessee for the  purpose  of\t its
\nbusiness within the meaning of s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing  inter-
\nest  on\t such balances standing to the credit  of  the\tLoss
\nEqualisation and Capital Redemption Reserve Fund as a deduc-
\ntion in computing the total income of the assessee?”\n<\/p>\n
    A further question common to the assessment years  1969-
\n70 to 1972-73 was also flamed. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  the Tribunal was right in law in holding that\t the
\nimpugned payments of interest did not contravene the  provi-
\nsions  of s. 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative  Societies
\nAct, 1965?”\n<\/p>\n
    The High Court agreed with the view taken by the  Appel-
\nlate  Tribunal and answered the questions in favour  of\t the
\nassessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  us, the parties have confined themselves to\t the
\nfirst  two  questions and it is requested that we  need\t not
\nconsider the third question.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthese appeals the question is whether the  claim  to
\ndeduction  under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act can  be
\nallowed.  Section  36(1)(iii) of the Act  provides  that  in
\ncomputing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits\t and
\ngains  of business or profession’ a deduction shall  be\t al-
\nlowed  of the amount of interest paid in respect of  capital
\nborrowed for the purposes of the business or profession. Can
\nit be said that the credit balance in the ‘Loss Equalisation
\nand Capital Redemp-\n<\/p>\n
846<\/span><\/p>\n
tion Reserve Fund’ represents capital borrowed by the asses-
\nsee  for  the purposes of its business?\t What  is  ‘borrowed
\nmoney’\thas  been construed by the Courts in  England  in  a
\nnumber of cases. In Port of London Authority v. Commissioner
\nof Inland Revenue, [1922] 2 KB 599 (CA). Lord Stemdale, M.R.
\nobserved  that in order that there be borrowed\tmoney  there
\nmust be a borrower and a lender, and later, when the Revenue
\ntook the case in appeal to the House of Lords, the House  of
\nLords  laid down in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v.\tPort
\nof  London Authority, [1923] AC 507 that to constitute\tbor-
\nrowed  money  there  must be “a real borrowing\tand  a\treal
\nlending”. Again in Inland Revenue Commissioners v.  Rowntree
\n&  Co. Ltd., [1948] 1 All ER 482 (CA), the Court  of  Appeal
\nconsidered  the\t meaning of the words ‘borrowed\t money’\t and
\nobserved  that\tthe  words should not be  given\t a  strained
\nmeaning and that it should be considered whether in ordinary
\ncommercial usage the relationship was that of a borrower and
\na lender and the transactions were loan transactions.  These
\ncases were relied upon by the Gujarat High Court in  Commis-
\nsioner of Incometax, Gujarat Iv. Rajkot Seeds, Oil & Bullion
\nMerchants Association Ltd., [1975] 101 ITR 748 in support of
\nthe conclusion that on the facts of the case before the High
\nCourt  there  was  no relationship of  borrower\t and  lender
\nbetween\t the  Rajkot  Seeds and Oil  and  Bullion  Merchants
\nAssociation  and  its members in so far as deposits  by\t the
\nmembers\t were concerned. It was held that the  amounts\twere
\ndeposited  by way of security taken for the due\t performance
\nof the, obligation of a member under the Rules of the  Asso-
\nciation for the discharge of his obligations to the Associa-
\ntion and to the other members of the Association. There\t was
\nno loan or borrowing at all. This question had in fact\tbeen
\nconsidered by the Calcutta High Court as long ago as Commis-
\nsioner\tof Excess Profits Tax, Central, Calcutta v.  Bhartia
\nElectric Steel Co. Ltd., [1954] 25 ITR 192 in the context of
\nthe  third  proviso to Rule 5A of Schedule I to\t the  Excess
\nProfits\t Tax Act, 1940. The money in question in  that\tcase
\nhad  been obtained by the issue of shares, and it  was\theld
\nthat it could not possibly be said that the persons who\t had
\ntaken  up the deferred shares had ever intended to  grant  a
\nloan  or  that the Company which had obtained money  on\t the
\nshares\thad  ever intended to borrow. This Court  in  Bombay
\nSteam Navigation Co. (1953) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax  Bombay,  [1965] 56 ITR 52, was  dealing  with  a
\nclaim  to  deduction  under  s.\t 10(2)(iii)  of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act\t 1922  in a case where\tunder  an  agreement
\ncertain\t assets were to be taken over by the  assessee\tfrom
\nthe  Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd., and part of\t the
\nconsideration  was  paid by the assessee while\tthe  balance
\nremained  unpaid.  For agreeing to deferred payment  of\t the
\nbalance of the consideration, the Scindias
\n847<\/span>
\nwere to be paid interest. This Court observed:
\n“An agreement to pay the balance of consideration due by the
\npurchaser  does not in truth give rise to a loan. A loan  of
\nmoney undoubtedly results in a debt, but every debt does not
\ninvolve\t a  loan.  Liability to pay a debt  may\t arise\tfrom
\ndiverse\t sources,  and a loan is only one of  such  sources.
\nEvery  creditor who is entitled to receive a debt cannot  be
\nregarded as a lender. If the requisite amount of  considera-
\ntion had been borrowed from a stranger, interest paid there-
\non  for the purpose of carrying on the business\t would\thave
\nbeen regarded as a permissible allowance, but that is wholly
\nirrelevant in considering the applicability of clause  (iii)
\nof sub-section (2) to the problem arising in this case.\t The
\nlegislature has under clause (iii) permitted as an allowance
\ninterest  paid on capital borrowed for the purposes  of\t the
\nbusiness: if interest be paid, but not on capital  borrowed,
\nclause (iii) will have no application .”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t point\twas also discussed by this Court  in  Madhav
\nPrasad Jatia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.,<\/a> [1979] 118
\nITR 200 where the question was whether the interest  claimed
\nunder  s.  10(2)(iii)  of the Indian  Income-tax  Act,\t1922
\nrelated to borrowing for the purpose of the business.
\n    In\tthe  present  case, Bye-law No.\t 50  indicates\tthat
\ndeposits  were\tto be made by the producer  members  in\t the
\n‘Loss Equalisation and Capital Redemption Reserve Fund’\t for
\nthe purpose of making the partly paid shares fully paid\t up,
\nand  it was understood that the balance of the amount  would
\nbe  applied  to the loan taken from the\t Industrial  Finance
\nCorporation of India and thereafter whatever remained  would
\nbe  refunded  to  the depositing members  resulting  in\t the
\nextinction  of\tthe Fund. It is apparent that  the  deposits
\nmade by the members cannot be regarded as loans advanced  by
\nthe members to the assessee. The moneys deposited represent-
\ned  contribution  by the members for converting\t the  partly
\npaid up shares into fully paid up shares and thereafter\t for
\ndelaying the loan taken from the Industrial Finance Corpora-
\ntion  of India. Any balance remaining was to be refunded  to
\nthe  members. The circumstances that there was no  certainty
\nthat  any  balance would remain for refund  to\tthe  members
\nwould  in  itself indicate that the deposits  could  not  be
\nregarded  as loans. A loan necessarily supposes a return  of
\nthe  money loaned. Even under the original Bye-law  No.\t 50,
\nwhich provided for deposits by the members to the
\n848<\/span>
\n‘Loss Equalisation and Capital Redemption Reserve Fund’,  it
\nwas contemplated that the deposits would be accumulated\t and
\nbe utilised for repayment of the initial loan taken from the
\nIndustrial  Finance Corporation of India and thereafter\t for
\nredeeming  the\t‘Government share’, and the balance  of\t the
\ndeposit\t after meeting losses would be converted into  share
\ncapital\t and each producer member would be issued shares  of
\nthe  assessee.\tThere was never any  intention\tbetween\t the
\nassessee  and its members to treat the deposits made by\t the
\nmembers\t as  loans  and that the  relationship\tbetween\t the
\nassessee  and  the members should be that  of  borrower\t and
\nlender.\t The High Court erred in holding that the  claim  to
\ndeduction on account of interest paid by the assessee to its
\nmembers was admissible under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
\n    It is urged by learned counsel for the assessee that  if
\nthe claim to deduction cannot be rested on s. 36(1)(iii)  of
\nthe Act, it should be regarded as admissible under s. 37  of
\nthe  Act. We are not satisfied that all the facts  necessary
\nfor considering a claim for deduction under s. 37 are before
\nus.  It will be noticed in Madhay Prasad Jatia (supra)\tthat
\nthe question of law expressly took in the claim to deduction
\nnot  only with reference to s. 10(1)(iii) but  alternatively
\nwith reference to s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
\n1922.  Whether\tor not it is still open to the\tassessee  to
\nraise  that question before the Appellate Tribunal when\t the
\ncase goes back to it for disposing it of in conformity\twith
\nthe  opinion expressed by this Court in these appeals  is  a
\nquestion  on  which we propose to express no  view  at\tthis
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  result the appeals are  allowed,  the  impugned
\njudgment  of the High Court in all these cases is set  aside
\nand the first and the second questions framed by the  Appel-
\nlate Tribunal are answered in the negative, in favour of the
\nRevenue\t and against the assessee. There is no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n849<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1866, 1989 SCR (2) 840 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj) PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW Vs. RESPONDENT: BAZPUR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1989 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2860,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989"},"wordCount":2860,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar ... on 1 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T22:45:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bazpur-co-operative-sugar-on-1-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar … on 1 May, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}