The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1864 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.S.N.Inamdar a/w.Vandana Rawate for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 5TH AUGUST, 2009 DATE : P.C. Heard. 2.Following substantial questions of law sought to be raised in the present appeal : a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was CORRECT in holding that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of excess cane price paid to members and nonmembers was not justified and in holding that such payments could not be disallowed either u/s. 40A(2) or u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act ? b) Whether the ITAT did not err on facts and in law in not treating the excess payment of cane price as constituting appropriation/distribution of profits ? c) 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 the 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 ? d) Whether the ITAT did not err on facts and in law in not treating such difference as constituting ‘distribution of profits’? 3.Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states, that so far as question Nos.(a), (b) and (d) are concerned, the same are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 191and question No.(c) is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs.Kisanvir Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. decided on 30th June, 2009 in ITXANo.930 of 2008. 4.In the above view of the matter the appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)