Itxa/276/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Aurangabad v. Samarth S.s.k. Ltd
High Court
17 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/276/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Aurangabad v. Samarth S.s.k. Ltd
Date of order
17 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/276/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Aurangabad v. Samarth S.s.k. Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.276 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.276 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holi Cross
High School, Cantonment,Aurangabad. ..Appellant.
V/s.
Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Ltd. Wadigodri, Tal.Ambad,
Dist. Jalna. ..Respondent.
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for appellant.
Mr.S.N.Inamdar with A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO
CORAM : F.I.REBELLOANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
1. This appeal is filed by Commissioner of Income
Tax under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the ITAT dated 13/1/2006 relating
to the assessment year 2001-02.
2. By consent, the appeal is admitted on the
following reframed questions of law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that advances paid to harvesting and transporting contractors was in the nature of business interest of the assessee society and
thereby deleting the disallowance of interest
part, even though such advance was not made in the normal course of business and was made without any specific contractual obligation and
out of borrowings on which assessee is giving
-= : 2 : =-
huge interest to financial institutions. Thus,
it was nothing but a diversion of borrowed funds
for non business purpose ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified
in holding that Bakshish payment made by the
assessee to harvesting and transport
contractor’s labourers was out of commercial
expediency, whereas such payments are purely
voluntary, based on sweet will of assessee
society and being over and above the agreed
price of contracts, do not form the part of
business expenditure ?
3. Counsel on both the sides agree that both the
questions are answered against the revenue and in
favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in
the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Samarth
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.
273 of 2007 decided on 17th September, 2007.
Accordingly, all the questions are answered in favour
of the assessee and against the revenue.
4. Appeal disposed of accordingly with no order
as to costs.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.