THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PURNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD

-:(1):- 55 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION Office

Notes,

Office Memoranda

of Coram, appearance,

Court's orders   or   directions   and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders.

14 TAX APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PURNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M. Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Sharma R.M. *** CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,JJ. DATED: 3rd FEBRUARY, 2014. PER COURT:

-:(2):- 55 law.     It   deserves   admission   on   the   said substantial questions of law: "(I) Whether   on   the   facts   and   in   the circumstances   of   the   case   and   in   law, the   Tribunal   was   justified   in   holding that   the   price   actually   paid   by   the cooperative society for the procurement of the  sugar  cane is  to be allowed  as business expenditure? (II) Whether   on   the   facts   and   in   the circumstances   of   the   case   and   in   law, the   Tribunal   was   justified   in   holding that the excess amount of expenditure on sugar cane purchase price was a charge on profit i.e. diversion of profit and not appropriation of profit? (III) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances   of   the   case   and   in   law, the   Tribunal   was   justified   in   deleting the   addition   made   by   the   Assessing Officer   in   respect   of   the   contribution made by the assessee for the Vasant Dada Sugar Institute, whereas there are facts

-:(3):- 55 on record that: (i) the amount paid by the assessee is in   the   nature   of   the   contribution/ donation   and   the   same   can   be   allowed under section 35 (1) of the IT Act when it is actually paid; (ii) the amount paid by the assessee is not   the   liability   of   the   assessee,   as there are no evidences on record to this effect; and (iii) even   if   for   the   sake   of argument, it is considered that this is the   liability   of   the   assessee   the assessee   has   not   produced   any   evidence to   establish   that   this   liability   has actually   been   incurred/   paid   by   the assessee?"

-:(4):- 55 across   the   State,   identical   controversy   was raised in relation to contributions made to the institutions,  whether  those are in  the  nature of contribution for scientific research or not and   whether   the   orders   passed   by   the authorities   indicate   the   same   with   sufficient details   and   clarity   are   matters   which   were involved in Tax Appeal No.56 of 2011 and other appeals.   Upon examining the orders there, and equally that of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP   (C)   No.8590   of   2010  [C.I.T.,   Bombay   V/s Krishna   Sahakari   Sakhar   Karkhana   Ltd.)   and connected   matters   on   the   applicability   of section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 we   have   adopted   the   course   laid   down   in   the Supreme  Court  order  i.e.   of  remand.     In  such circumstances and following the same order, we quash and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and   that   of   the   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax (Appeals)   impugned   in   this   appeal.     We   remit the   case   to   the   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad for being decided afresh, on   merits   and   in   accordance   with   law   but

-:(5):- 55 bearing   in   mind   the   issue   of   facts   and   law noted by us above.  We had to pass an order of remand  only because there  are  orders  impugned in this appeal, which are cryptic in nature, we could not satisfy ourselves as to whether the Appellate   Tribunal   has   performed   its   duty   in accordance   with   law.     In   such   circumstances, this  appeal  is   also  allowed  and  we   adopt   the reasoning   in   Tax   Appeal   No.33   of   2009   in allowing the same.   There will be no order as to costs. [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.][S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.] Dt.03/02/2014 ans/55