Disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. v. Godavari Manar S S K Ltd. Biloli

Bombay HC8 Oct 2007ITXA/261/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta Bench disposed of Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2007 by referencing judgments in connected appeals. It affirmed that questions regarding repayment deductibility, Section 40A(2)(a) applicability, and cane price classification were answered in favor of the assessee, while rejecting the claim regarding PF contribution delays.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, noting that questions 1-5 were answered in favor of the assessee and question 6 against the assessee in separate prior judgments.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Vs Godavari Manar S S… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON

¶3

 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.261 OF 2007

¶4

 The Commissioner of Income-tax .. Appellant.
 Versus

¶5

 Godavari Manar Sahakari Sakhar
 Karkhana Limited .. Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P. Bhosale for the
 appellant.
 Mr.S.N. Inamdar with Mr.A.K. Jasani for the
 respondent.

¶7

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :

¶9

 1. Parties agree that the questions of law can
 be reframed. Admit on the following questions of
 law.

¶10

 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right
 in law in holding that provisions of Section
 40A(2)(a) are not applicable to a
 co-operative Society ?

¶11

 2. Whether, on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case, the Appellate
 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 under
 section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

¶12

 3. Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case cane price/Khodki
 charges paid by the assessee was not "Bonus"
 within the meaning of 2(4) of the
 Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, 1960 and
 it was allowable as business expenditure ?

¶13

 4. 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

¶14

¶15

 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 the assessee
 is giving huge interest to the financial
 institutions. Thus, it was nothing but a
 diversion of borrowed funds for non-business
 purpose ?

¶16

 5. 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
 society to Harvesting and Transport
 labourers was out of commercial expediency,
 whereas such payments are purely
 voluntarily, based on sweet will of assessee
 society and being over and above the agreed
 price of contracts, these do not form the
 part of business expenditure ?

¶17

 6. Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
 right in law in directing to allow the claim
 in respect of delayed payment of PF, if it
 has been paid upto the date of filing of
 Return of Income ignoring the fact that said
 amendment to the provisions of Section 43B
 of the I.T. Act was made w.e.f. 01/04/2004
 i.e. from A.Y. 2004-05 and prior to that
 period, such contribution is to be allowed
 only when the same is paid before the due
 date of resepctive month.

¶18

 2. Question Nos.1,2 and 3 have been answered in
 favour of the assessee and against the revenue by
 our judgment dated 14th August, 2007 in Income Tax
 Appeal No.318 of 2007 & other appeals {The
 Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Manjara Shetkari
 Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited}.

¶19

 2. Question No.4 and 5 are answered in favour
 of the assessee and against the Revenue by our

¶20

¶21

 Judgment dated 17th September, 2007 in Income Tax
 Appeal No.273 of 2007 (The Commissioner of
 Income-tax V/s. Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
 Limited).

¶22

 3. Question No.6 pertains to employers
 contribution to PF has been answered against the
 assessee and in favour of the revenue by our
 judgment dated 8th October, 2007 in Income Tax
 Appeal No.256 of 2004 & other appeals {The
 Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Godavari (Mannar)
 Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,}.

¶23

 4. In the light of that question Nos.1 to 5
 answered in the affirmative in favour of the
 assessee and against the revenue. Question No.6 is
 answered in the negative in favour of the revenue
 and against the assessee.

¶24

 5. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with
 no order as to costs.

¶25

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. v. Godavari Manar S S K Ltd. Biloli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. v. Godavari Manar S S K Ltd. Biloli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantilal M.Jhala Vs Union of India

Sunil M.Shah Vs the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange

M/S. Bronze Chem Enterprise Vs Union of India and Ors.

Surekha Shashank Sawant Vs the Chairman - Mumbai Vegetable Markets and Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Vs Godavari Manar S S K Ltd, Biloli

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Vs Godavari Manar S S K Ltd. Biloli