TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s; and also taxed the deposits received by the respondent/assessee from the agents and retailers. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated March 29, 1993, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by order dated September 25, 2000, allowed the issue with respect to the deposits received from the agents and retailers, while confirming the assessment order with respect to rejection of 100% depreciation on purchase of bottles and crates. On an appeal and counter appeal, by both sides, against the respective aggrieved portion of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated September 25, 2000, the Tribunal, by order dated January 30, 2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0] 244 ITR 238, held that each bottle was an independent unit and was not dependent for its user on the availability of other bottles whether empty or filled. The use of one bottle was not interconnected with the use of other bottles. Since each bottle was an individual unit and all bottles together did not constitute a single integrated unit depreciation under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act (for brevity "the Act"), is allowable. As per the rules of interpretation, it is not the policy of the law to introduce complexity even when matters can be dealt with in a simple and straightforward manner by giving full effect to the words used in the statutory provision, unless there are compelling reasons evident from the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ratio enunciated from the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the considered opinion, that the Tribunal was right in holding that crates and bottles are entitled for depreciation at the rate of 100%. Question (ii). Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the security deposits received from the agents and retailers are not taxable in the hands of the assessee? Concededly, in the assessee's own case, viz., CIT v. Madurai Soft Drinks (P.) Ltd. [2000] 241 ITR 229, the Division Bench of this court held that the deposits received from the agents and retailers for the bottles used as containers of soft drinks did not constitute income of the assessee. A similar v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 75 (SC) is a reiteration of the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the apex court in an earlier case of the same assessee before the apex court in the year 1959, viz., Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 519, and the facts of both the cases are identical. The assessee, viz., Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd., was a distiller of bottled country liquor and was carrying on the business of selling bottled country liquor to the licensed wholesalers. Due to shortage of bottles during war time, a "buy-back scheme" was evolved by the Government whereunder the distiller company charged the wholesaler a price for the bottle in which liquor was supplied at a rate fixed by the Government, which the company was bound to repay to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the refunds is assessable, because the trade consisted of sale of bottled liquor and the consideration for the sale was constituted by several amounts respectively, (i) the price of the liquor; (ii) the price of the bottle; and (iii) the security deposit. Unless all these sums were paid, the assessee would not have sold the liquor. So, the amount which was called the security deposit was actually a part of consideration for the sale and therefore, a part of the price of what was sold. When the question whether the charge viz., "empty bottles return security deposit" is a trading receipt assessable to tax, with reference to the assessment years 1946-47, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, came for the consideration of the Income-tax Officer, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich was collected under the Government's sanction constituted a taxable income. The mere fact that the charges were collected as security deposit for the purpose of showing that they were not a part of trading transactions would not, by itself, render the said charges as security deposit as the same is a part of trading transaction and the return of bottles was necessary to enable the assessee to carry on its trade to sell liquor in them. In the instant case, as in the case of CIT v. Goyal Gases P. Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 216 (Delhi), the security deposit collected by the assessee from the agents and retailers did not form part of the sale transaction, unlike in the case of CIT v. Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 75 (SC), where....