<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (9) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6148</link>
    <description>Compulsory deductions from cane price were analysed to determine whether they constituted taxable income in the hands of sugar co-operative societies. Amounts described as refundable and non-refundable deposits were held not taxable because they were credited to members, carried interest, were repayable or convertible into shares on specified contingencies, and never became the societies&#039; absolute property. Deductions remitted to the Chief Minister&#039;s Relief Fund, Y.B. Chavan Memorial Fund and Hutment Fund were also not taxable because they were diverted at source under government directions and the societies acted only as collecting agents. By contrast, amounts retained in the Cane Development Fund were taxable, as they were received and controlled by the assessees for their own operational benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6148</link>
      <description>Compulsory deductions from cane price were analysed to determine whether they constituted taxable income in the hands of sugar co-operative societies. Amounts described as refundable and non-refundable deposits were held not taxable because they were credited to members, carried interest, were repayable or convertible into shares on specified contingencies, and never became the societies&#039; absolute property. Deductions remitted to the Chief Minister&#039;s Relief Fund, Y.B. Chavan Memorial Fund and Hutment Fund were also not taxable because they were diverted at source under government directions and the societies acted only as collecting agents. By contrast, amounts retained in the Cane Development Fund were taxable, as they were received and controlled by the assessees for their own operational benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>