The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii v. Shri.somneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1050 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax III. v. Shri.Somneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr.Counsel for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 09TH JANUARY, 2013 PC: This appeal by the revenue against the order dated 30/10/.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2004-05 raises the following substantial question of law for consideration of this court. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of difference between the market price of sugar and concessional price at which sugar was sold to the cane growers by holding that no income accrued to the assessee on concessional sales and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to be assessed on the difference? b)Whether the ITAT did not err on facts and in law in not treating such difference as constituting distribution of profits? c)Whether on given facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in holding that cane supply expenses are allowable u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act though such expenditure are not proved to be wholly and exclusively for purpose of business which is a condition prerequisite for allowability of expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act? d)Whether on given facts and in circumstances of the case the ITAT is correct in deleting addition on account of cane supply expenses without appreciating that as distinguished from Sec.28 to 36 of the Income Tax Act, Sec.37(1) of the Income Tax Act uses the words wholly and exclusively for purpose of business as condition for allowability of expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act and thus lays more strict requirement u/s.37(1) of the Act as distinguished from Sec.28 to 36 of the Income Tax Act? 2)So far as question (a) and (b) are concerned, the same are covered against the revenue by the decision of this court in Income Tax Appeal No.930/2008 in CIT v. Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. dated 30/6/2009. 3)arises with regard to question (a) and (b) above. In view of the above, no substantial question of law ASN 4)So far as question (c) and (d) are concerned, the same are covered against the revenue by the decision of this court dated 20/11/2012 in the matter of CIT v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal No.151/2011. 5)In view of the above, question(c) and (d) also do not raise any substantial question of law so as to warrant entertaining these questions. 6)In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKELCHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)