{"id":177535,"date":"2004-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-12-29T07:03:55","modified_gmt":"2015-12-29T01:33:55","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 06\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU\n\nT.C.No.841 of 2004\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax                             .. Appellant\nMadurai.\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd.                      .. Respondent\nMadurai.\n\n        PRAYER:  Against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras\n'B'   Bench,   dated  30.1.2003  in  I.T.A.No.1432\/Mds\/97  pertaining  to  the\nassessment year 1990-91.\n\n!For Appellant  :       Mr.J.Narayanasamy\n                        Junior Standing Counsel\n                        for Income Tax Cases\n\n^For Respondents:  ---\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
        The appellant is the revenue.  This appeal is with  reference  to  the
\nassessment year   1990-91.      According   to   the   appellant\/revenue,  the
\nrespondent\/assessee filed a return for the assessment  year  1990-91  and  the
\nassessing  officer,  by assessment order dated 29.3.1993, disallowed the claim
\nof the respondent\/assessee in respect of  100%  depreciation  on  purchase  of
\nbottles   and   crates;   and   also   taxed  the  deposits  received  by  the
\nrespondent\/assessee from the agents and retailers.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Aggrieved  by  the  assessment   order   dated   29.3.1993,   the
\nrespondent\/assessee  preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax
\n(Appeals).  The Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  (Appeals),  by  order  dated  2
\n5.9.2000,  allowed  the  issue  with respect to the deposits received from the
\nagents and retailers, while confirming the assessment order  with  respect  to
\nrejection of 100% depreciation on purchase of bottles and crates.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   On  an  appeal  and  counter  appeal,  by both sides, against the
\nrespective aggrieved portion of the order of the Commissioner  of  Income  Tax
\n(Appeals)  dated  25.9.2000,  the  Tribunal,  by order dated 30.1.2003 made in
\nI.T.A.No.1432\/Mds\/97, decided both the issues in favour of the assessee, viz.,\n<\/p>\n
(i) allowed 100% depreciation on the purchase of bottles and crates; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) held that deposits received by the respondent\/assessee  from  the  agents
\nand retailers are not revenue receipts and are therefore, not taxable.
\nHence, the above appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        4.    The   appellant\/revenue  formulated  the  following  substantial
\nquestions of law for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right
\nin holding that crates and bottles are entitled for depreciation at  the  rate
\nof 100%?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Whether  in  the  facts  and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
\nright in holding that the security deposits received from the agents  and  the
\nretailers are not taxable in the hands of the assessee?\n<\/p>\n
        5.1.   Question  (i)  –  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, the Tribunal was right in holding that crates and bottles  are  entitled
\nfor depreciation at the rate of 100%?\n<\/p>\n
        5.2.   Even  though  the  appellant\/revenue  treated  the  bottles  in
\nquestion as a whole and considered the same as a unit and calculated the value
\nabove Rs.5000\/- and contended that the respondent\/assessee is not entitled for
\n100% depreciation, the law is now well settled as per  the  decision  of  this
\nCourt in FIRST LEASING  CO.    OF  INDIA LTD.  v.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,<\/a>
\n[2000] 244 ITR 238.  Under similar facts and circumstances of  the  case,  the
\nDivision Bench of  this  Court,  in  the  FIRST LEASING CO.  OF INDIA LTD.  v.
\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX<\/a> case, referred supra, held that each bottle was  an
\nindependent  unit  and  was  not dependent for its user on the availability of
\nother bottles whether empty or  filled.    The  use  of  one  bottle  was  not
\ninterconnected with  the  use  of  other  bottles.    Since each bottle was an
\nindividual  unit  and  all  bottles  together  did  not  constitute  a  single
\nintegrated  unit  depreciation  under  the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the
\nIncome Tax (for brevity “the Act”), is allowable.\n<\/p>\n
        5.2.  As per the rules of interpretation, it is not the policy of  the
\nlaw  to  introduce  complexity even when matters can be dealt with in a simple
\nand straightforward manner by giving full effect to  the  words  used  in  the
\nstatutory  provision,  unless  there  are  compelling reasons evident from the
\ncontext in which the provision occurs.  Therefore, each of the bottle  has  to
\nbe considered as an independent unit.\n<\/p>\n
        5.3.   Similar view is also taken by a Division Bench of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v.  AQUEOUS VICTUALS P.  LTD,  [2004]
\n266 ITR 573, where also the bottles and crates used by the soft drink bottlers
\nwere held  entitled to depreciation.  In the said decision, the Allahabad High
\nCourt, following a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in  COMMISSIONER
\nOF INCOME TAX  v.    SRI  KRISHNA BOTTLERS PVT.  LTD.,<\/a> [1989] 175 ITR 154 held
\nthat bottles were essential tools of the  trade.    Without  the  bottles  and
\nshells, the  soft drink could not be effectively transported.  The bottles and
\ntheir contents were totally interdependent.  So were the shells.  The  bottles
\nand  shells  also  satisfied  the durability test because it was nobody’s case
\nthat their life was so transitory or negligible to warrant an  inference  that
\nthey had  no  function to play in the assessee’s trade.  They were, therefore,
\n“plant” for purposes of the Act and the assessee is entitled  to  depreciation
\nin respect of them under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.4.    The  said  decision  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v.  SRI  KRISHNA  BOTTLERS  PVT.    LTD.,<\/a>  referred
\nsupra,  was  confirmed by the Apex Court by a decision reported in [1994] 20 9
\nITR (St.) 85.\n<\/p>\n
        5.5.  The view taken by the Allahabad High Court  in  COMMISSIONER  OF
\nINCOME TAX v.  AQUEOUS VICTUALS P.  LTD, referred supra, was also confirmed by
\nthe Apex Court by a decision reported in [2004] 266 ITR (St.) 2.\n<\/p>\n
        5.6.   Applying  the  ratio enunciated from the aforesaid decisions to
\nthe facts of the case on hand, we are of  the  considered  opinion,  that  the
\nTribunal  was  right  in  holding  that  crates  and  bottles are entitled for
\ndepreciation at the rate of 100%.\n<\/p>\n
        6.1.  Question (ii) – Whether in the facts and  circumstances  of  the
\ncase,  the  Tribunal  was right in holding that the security deposits received
\nfrom the agents and the  retailers  are  not  taxable  in  the  hands  of  the
\nassessee?\n<\/p>\n
        6.2.  Concededly, in  assessee’s  own  case, viz., C.I.T.  v.  MADURAI
\nSOFT DRINKS (P) LTD., [2000] 240 ITR 229, the Division  Bench  of  this  Court
\nheld  that the deposits received from the agents and retailers for the bottles
\nused as containers of soft drinks did not constitute income of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
        6.3.  A similar view was also taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi
\nHigh Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v.  GOYAL GASES P.  LTD.,<\/a> [1 991] 188
\nITR 216, wherein the assessee carried on the business of filling gas bought by
\nit in cylinders and supplying them to customers.  The customers were  required
\nto furnish  security  for  the  cylinders  supplied  to  them.   The Appellate
\nTribunal found that depreciation was allowable on the cylinders and  that  the
\nexpenses  incurred  by  the assessee towards repairs were allowable as revenue
\ndeduction.  The Tribunal further found  that  the  security  deposit  did  not
\nbelong  to the assessee and the money remained as that of the consumers since,
\non the return of the cylinders, their  security  deposit  was  refundable  and
\nhence,  the  security  deposit was not a revenue receipt, and the said view of
\nthe Tribunal was upheld by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.1.   Mr.J.Narayanasamy,   learned   standing   counsel   for   the
\nappellant\/revenue  inviting our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in
\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v.  PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD.,<\/a> [196  4]  53
\nITR 75 (SC) contends that the amount deposited by the agents and retailers are
\nto  be  treated as trading receipts constituting income of the assessee, which
\nis taxable.  A deep consideration is, therefore, required to deal  as  to  the
\napplicability  of  the ratio laid down by Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
\nTAX v.  PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD.,<\/a> referred supra, to the facts of the
\ninstant case.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.2.  In fact, the ratio laid down in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX  v.
\nPUNJAB  DISTILLING  INDUSTRIES  LTD.,<\/a> [1964] 53 ITR 75 is a reiteration of the
\nratio decedendi of the judgment of the Apex Court in an earlier  case  of  the
\nsame  assessee before the Apex Court in the year 1959, viz., Punjab Distilling
\nIndustries Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of Incometax, [1959] 35 I.T.R.  519  (S.C.),
\nand the  facts  of  both  the cases are identical.  The assessee, viz., Punjab
\nDistilling Industries Ltd., was a distiller of bottled country liquor and  was
\ncarrying  on  the  business  of  selling  bottled  country  liquor to licensed
\nwholesalers.  Due to shortage of bottles during war time, a “buy-back  scheme”
\nwas  evolved  by  the Government, whereunder the distiller company charged the
\nwholesaler a price for the bottle in which liquor was supplied at a rate fixed
\nby the Government, which the company was bound to repay to the  wholesaler  on
\nhis returning  the bottles.  In addition to this, the distiller took a further
\nsum from the wholesaler describing it  as  ”  Empty  Bottles  Return  Security
\nDeposit”.  Like the price of the bottles, these monies were also repaid as and
\nwhen bottles  were  returned.    That  entire sum was refunded when 90% of the
\nbottles covered by it had been returned,  though  the  remaining  10%  of  the
\nbottles had  not  been  returned.    Thus,  the object of demanding and taking
\nadditional sums as security  deposits  was  obviously  to  provide  additional
\ninducement for the return of the bottles to the distiller so that its trade in
\nselling  the  produce  of  its  distillery  might  not be hampered for want of
\nbottles.  It is also interesting to observe that the Government had not  fixed
\nany time limit within which the bottles had to be returned in order to entitle
\nthe wholesaler  to  the  refund, nor had a refund ever been refused.  The said
\n“buy-back scheme” of the  Government  to  ensure  the  return  of  bottles  is
\nintended to relieve the scarcity of bottles.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.3.   The  distiller  was  assessed to income tax on the balance of
\namounts, viz., the additional sums left after the refunds were made.  Then the
\nquestion arose whether the balance of amounts of these  additional  sums  left
\nafter the  refunds  were  made  is  assessable?    The  Apex  Court  in Punjab
\nDistilling Industries Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of  Incometax  [1959]  35  I.T.R.
\n519  (S.C.),  while  dealing with assessments for the assessment years 1947-48
\nand 1948-49, held the balance of amounts of additional  sums  left  after  the
\nrefunds  is  assessable, because the trade consisted of sale of bottled liquor
\nand the  consideration  for  the  sale  was  constituted  by  several  amounts
\nrespectively,  (i)  the price of the liquor; (ii) the price of the bottle; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii) the security deposit.  Unless all these sums  were  paid,  the  assessee
\nwould not  have sold the liquor.  So, the amount which was called the security
\ndeposit was actually a part of consideration for the  sale  and  therefore,  a
\npart of the price of what was sold.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.4.   When  the  question  whether  the charge viz., “empty bottles
\nreturn security  deposit”  is  a  trading  receipt  assessable  to  tax,  with
\nreference  to the assessment years 1946-47, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, came
\nfor the consideration of the Income Tax Officer, the Income Tax Officer  taxed
\nthese  charges  and  on  appeal  ,  the  same  was  confirmed by the Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner.    On  further  appeal,  the  Tribunal  reversed   the
\ndecisions  of the authorities below and held that these charges were loans and
\nnot trading receipts, and the same happened even before rendering the decision
\nreported in Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of  Income-tax<\/a>
\n[1959] 35 I.T.R.  519 (S.C.), with respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and
\n1948-49.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.5.   Under  such  circumstances,  the  Commissioner  of Income-Tax
\nobtained a reference of the following question to the Punjab High Court, viz.,
\nwhether the collections by the assessee company described in its accounts  are
\n’empty  bottles return security deposits’ were income assessable under Section
\n10 of the Income Tax Act.  The Punjab High Court  took  the  view  that  as  a
\nresult  of  the  amendment  to  the  Punjab Excise Rules made under the Punjab
\nExcise Act, which came into effect from 1.4.1948, the charges collected  after
\nthat  date  were  not covered by that judgment, and held that the amended rule
\nmade the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgment in  the  same  assessee  case
\nreported in Punjab  Distilling Industries Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a>
\n[1959] 3 5 I.T.R.  519 (S.C.), inapplicable to  the  charges  collected  after
\nthat date.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.6.   The  Apex  Court,  on  appeal  preferred  by  the revenue, in
\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v.  PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES  LTD.,<\/a>  [1964]  53
\nITR  75  (SC),  held  that  it  has  never  been in dispute, either before the
\namendment or later, that the charge under  the  “buy-back  scheme”  which  was
\ncollected under  the  Government’s sanction constituted a taxable income.  The
\nmere fact that the charges were collected as security deposit for the  purpose
\nof  showing  that  they  were  not a part of trading transaction would not, by
\nitself, render the said charges as security deposit as the same is a  part  of
\ntrading  transaction  and  the  return  of bottles was necessary to enable the
\nassessee to carry on its trade to sell liquor in them.\n<\/p>\n
        6.4.7.  In the instant case, as in the case of COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME
\nTAX v.   GOYAL  GASES P.  LTD.,<\/a> referred supra, the security deposit collected
\nby the assessee from the agents and retailers did not form part  of  the  sale
\ntransaction, unlike  in  the  case  of  COMMISSIONER  OF INCOME TAX v.  PUNJAB
\nDISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD.,<\/a> [1964] 53 ITR 75 (SC), where “empty bottles return
\nsecurity deposit” forms a part of the sale transaction, as per  the  “buy-back
\nscheme” formulated by the Government under the Punjab Excise Rules.\n<\/p>\n
        6.5.   For  the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm opinion that the
\ncontention made on behalf of the appellant\/revenue  that  the  “empty  bottles
\nreturn  security  deposits”  received  from the agents and retailers are trade
\nreceipts, is liable to be rejected and the said amount is not taxable  in  the
\nhands of the assessee.  The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the
\nsecurity  deposits  received from the agents and the retailers are not taxable
\nin the hands of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
        Finding,  therefore,  no  substantial  question   of   law   for   our
\nconsideration, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index           :       Yes\nInternet        :       Yes\n\nsasi\n\nTo:\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.  The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai ‘B’ Bench,
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-IX)
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-I,
\nMadurai-I.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU T.C.No.841 of 2004 Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Madurai. -Vs- M\/s.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - 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-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\" \/>\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 M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - 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-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-29T01:33:55+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=\"12 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-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T01:33:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T01:33:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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 M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - 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-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-29T01:33:55+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T01:33:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004"},"wordCount":2271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T01:33:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-madurai-soft-drinks-pvt-ltd-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/177535","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=177535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}