Itxa/257/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik v. Kadwa Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.257 OF 2009 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.257 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Kadwa Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law: 1) Whether on the facts and circumustances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in relying upon the decision of ITAT, Bombay, Special Bench (Bombay) in the case of Manjara Shetkari Karkhana Ltd. in what it was held that the expenditure was in the nature of business expenditure admissible u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act and no part of the said expenditure can be allowed u/s. 40(2) ? 2) Whether on the facts and circumustances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the payments made by the assessee were not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of section 40A(2) of the Act ? 3) Whether on the facts and circumustances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the price ’actually’ paid by the assessee for the procurement of the sugar cane is - = : 2 : = - to be allowed as business expenditure ? 4) Whether in the facts and circumustances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in ignoring the fact that the additional amount paid by the assessee society was after the finalization of the financial results for the year under consideration, can be considered as an admissible business expenditure within the meaning of the provisions of section 37(1) of the I.T. Act ? 5) Whether in the facts and circumustances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in ignoring the fact that the additional amount paid by the assessee Cooperative Society was after the finalization of the financial results cannot be considered to be price paid for the procurement of sugar cane and obviously it is not allowable expenditure ? 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the question Nos.1 to 4 are covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioer of Commissioer ofIncome Tax V/s. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. reported in 301 I.T.R. 191 (Bom.). Income Tax V/s. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 3. So far as the question No.5 is concerned, he agrees that the said question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) - = : 3 : = -