Allowed

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

Bombay HC8 Oct 2007ITXA/266/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income Tax Appeal regarding allowable deductions for a sugar cooperative society. The court decided three questions in favor of the assessee and one concerning provident fund in favor of the revenue, relying on its own prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Questions 1 to 3 answered in favor of the assessee; Question 4 answered in favor of the revenue. Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Vs Godavari… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.266 OF 2007

¶4

 The Commissioner of Income-tax .. Appellant.
 Versus

¶5

 Godavari Mannar 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 the Tribunal was
 right in law in directing to allow the claim
 in respect of delayed payment of PF, if it

¶14

¶15

 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.r.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 respective month.

¶16

 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}.

¶17

 3. Question No.4 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

¶18

 Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Godavari (Mannar)
 Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,}.

¶19

 4. In the light of that question Nos.1 to 3
 answered in the affirmative in favour of the
 assessee and against the revenue. Question No.4 is
 answered in the negative in favour of the revenue
 and against the assessee.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

 (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

Cases cited

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