Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI versus M/S. MODERN ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION COOPERTIVE SOCIETY LTD.

Decided
4 September 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 63 · 2008 INSC 1015

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 64, margin C

2

In the instant appeal, challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short· 'the Act'). The issue related to the claim of deduction made by the respondent under Section BOP (2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessing officer negatived the claim on the ground that the income reflected by the assessee can neither be attributed to actual labour of the members nor can be treated as arising out of collective disposal of its labour. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the earlier orders, allowed the appeal. The Revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-'A' Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') which dismissed the appeals.

p. 64, margin C

3

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessing officer had rightly observed that the claim of deduction in terms of Section BOP(a)(i) is not allowable. Unfortunately, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held otherwise. The High Court failed to notice that the profit earned by the Society in executing the work was retained by the members themselves.

p. 64, margin F

4

There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice.

p. 64, margin G

5

The High Court seems to have proceeded on the factual premises as if the dispute related to interest received from members. This confusion appears to have arisen because the High Court mixed up the factual position of some other case which related to credit society engaged in Banking. On that score alone, the High Court's order is ,indefensible.

p. 65, margin A

6

Apart from that we find that the decision of this Court in Madas Autorickshaw Drivers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001 (10) sec 175), which has prima facie relevance, was not noticed by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for a fresh consideration in the light of. the aforesaid decision, keeping in view the correct factual position. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

p. 65, margin B

7

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. D.G. Appeal disposed of. ·.

p. 65, margin D