TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.1,95,144/- received from the various customers through bills and credited to the Dharmada Account was in the nature of revenue receipt and, hence liable to be taxed as the income of the assessee during the assessment year 1987-88?" 2. Facts of the case are that M/s Lilasons Breweries Limited(hereinafter referred as the 'Assessee') is a limited company. During the assessment year 1987-88, it had collected a sum of Rs.1,95, 144 by way of Dharmada from the customers. The assessee had maintained a separate Dharmada Account in which the amount realized from the customers on the basis of the bills prepared was credited . As per the case, the Dharmada was charged at the rate of Rs. 20 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the controversy has already been decided by the Apex Court. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, the order of the Apex Court is referred thus:- "15. Dealing with the factual aspects on the basis of which counsel for the Revenue sought to support the Tribunal's finding that no trust could be said to have been created by the customers it will be apparent from the above discussion that none of the aspects are such as would lend support to the inference drawn by the Tribunal. We have already dealt with the alleged compulsory nature of the levy and have pointed out that the dharmada amounts cannot be said to have been paid involuntarily by the customers and in any case the compulsory nature of the payments, if there be any, cannot im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no trust could be said to have been created by the customers in respect of the impugned amounts will have to be regarded as erroneous." The Apex Court held: " A gift to dharmada or dharmadaya both in common parlance as well as by the customary meaning attached thereto among the commercial and trading community cannot be regarded as void or invalid on account of vagueness or uncertainty, and it is, therefore, clear that when the customers or brokers paid the amounts to the assessee earmarking them for dharmada it must be held that these payments were validly earmarked for charitable purposes. In other words, right from inception these amounts were received and held by the assessee under an obligation to spend the same for charitable purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held qua such amounts, namely, that it was under an obligation to utilize them exclusively for charitable purposes. It is true that the assessee did not keep these amounts in a separate bank account, but admittedly a separate dharmada account was maintained in the books in which every receipt was credited and payment made thereout on charity was debited and these amounts were never credited in the trading account, nor were carried to the profit and loss statement. Hence realizations made by the assessee from its customers for dharmada being validly earmarked for charity or charitable purposes could not be regarded as the assessee's income chargeable to tax." In view of the aforesaid, the Apex Court held that: "Dharmada" amounts are receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue." 6. In Misc.Civil Case No.668/1993 which was decided by the order dated 16.7.1996, the question of law referred to this Court were as under: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amounts received from the directors and shareholders of the company were in the nature of 'Deposits' within the meaning of 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act and that the judgment of the M.P. High Court in the case of Kalani Asbestos Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1989) 180 ITR 55 was not applicable in the present case?" "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.42,649/- in the A.Y. 1981-82, Rs.7....