C Ayakar Bhavan, Kolhapur v. Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari

1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME-TAX APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I 31-C AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLHAPUR .. APPELLANT Vs. KUMBHI KASARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., KOLHAPUR .. RESPONDENT Mr. Vimal Gupta for Appellant CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE: 9/2/2009 P.C. . Following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal: a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of sec. 40A(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the payments made by a coop. Society to members towards purchase price of cane supplied or as khodki charges? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified 2 in holding that the payments by the coop. Society were not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of sec. 40A(2) of the Act in respect of members and that to non-members within the meaning of sec.37(1) of the Act? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the price "actually" paid by the society for the procurement of the sugar cane is to be allowed as business expenditure? d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the excess amount of expenditure on sugar cane purchase price was a charge on profit i.e. diversion of profit and appropriation of profit? e. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the additional amount paid by the society after the finalization of the financial results for the year under considered can be considered to be price paid for procurement of sugar cane and allowed as business expenditure? 3 f. Whether the Tribunal was justified in following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Shri Panchanganga SSK Ltd., 250 ITR 772 where the issue involved before the court was totally different and there was no disalloance made u/s 40A(2) of the Act? 2. The questions raised in this appeal are answered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Manjra Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 301 ITR 191 and are decided against the revenue. In view of this appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE