The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Tatyasaheb Kore Warana Sahakarisakhar Karkhana Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.2726 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SahakariSakhar Karkhana Ltd. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. .... ..... ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. P.C. : 1[st] February, 2010. The office objections are waived. The Respondent is directed to number the appeal. The following questions of law have been formulated by the revenue in the appeal : “a.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional payment over and above the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) was cane price and not diversion of profit and as such allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961? b.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not applicable to payment made by a Co-operative Society to members and non-members towards purchase price of cane supplied? c.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to members when it is nothing but diversion of profit?” Questions (a) and (b) are covered against the revenue by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. - (2008) 166 Taxman 287 (Bom). Question (c) is covered against the revenue by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 30[th] June, 2009 in CIT v. Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (ITA 930 of 2008). In the circumstances, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)