Allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2017TA/123/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the Revenue's appeal and remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad, for a fresh decision on merits in light of the Apex Court judgment in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010, following the precedent set in Tax Appeal No.55/2009.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad, for a fresh decision on merits.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Vs Vithal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Tax Appeal No.123/2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

TAX APPEAL NO.123 OF 2008

¶5

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross School, Cantonment, Aurangabad.

¶6

... APPELLANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad

¶9

... RESPONDENT

¶10

Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for appellant Shri G.D. Jain, Advocate holding for Shri D.L. Khivesara, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2017.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.):

¶13

This appeal is filed by the Revenue, in challenge to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department was assailing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 18.1.2006, pertaining to the assessment year 2002-2003. The Tribunal could not find any favour with the Department. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. Present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 2.2.2011, on the following questions of law namely :-

¶14

Tax Appeal No.123/2008

¶15

¶16

(1) Whether the differential payment made by the assessee(s) to the cane growers after the close of the financial year or after the balance-sheet date would constitute an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and whether such differential payment would, applying the real income theory, constitute an expenditure or distribution of profits.

¶17

(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the contribution made by the assessee for Vasant Dada Sugar Institute in the face of the fact that actual contribution/ donation to the said institute is not made and only provision for making such contribution/ donation was made on paper?

¶18

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of sugar sale to members at concessional rate ?

¶19

Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal were identical substantial questions of law involved in Tax Appeal No.55/2009. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 3.2.2014, decided the appeal. In the order of the Division Bench, dated 3.2.2014, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.8590 of 2010 [C.I.T., Bombay V/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.) is

¶20

Tax Appeal No.123/2008

¶21

¶22

referred to. Mr. Sharma submitted that, there are certain other appeals decided by this Court in view of the Apex Court judgment. Mr. Sharma submitted that, the matters are remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits. Perusal of the order dated 3.2.2014, passed by the Division Bench shows that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as in view of the fact that the orders impugned in the appeals are cryptic in nature, the Division Bench of this Court thought it fit to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, so as to assess the matter afresh on its own merits.

¶23

We see no reason to take any different view than the view adopted by Division Bench of this Court. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the authority concerned namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad will decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, needless to state, by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶24

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

fmp/-

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad v. Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

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

Umarkher Bashir Pathan Vs the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Chandrakala Radhakishan Brijwasi, Died, Thr. L.Rs. Radhakishan Devkinandan Brijwasi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah, Thr. the Collector, Latur and Anr.

Ankita Bhimrao Chavan Vs Dr. Pravin Harishchandra Shingare and Another

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad Vs Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Latur

Thecommissioner of Income Tax Vs Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkana Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Vs Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Tuljapur Osmanabad.