THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD.. vs. BHAURAO CHAVAN SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. , NANDED.

PDF · subscribers
TA/93/2008HC BombayHCBM03015502200810 February 2012Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.B.DESHMUKH,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE D. G. KARNIK2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by consent of the parties, took up the appeal for final hearing at the admission stage. The Court noted that the issue pressed by the Revenue was identical to an issue decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Prarisar SSK Ltd. and others [(2010) 231 CTS (SC) 224]. In that Supreme Court case, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Since the present case involved an identical issue, the High Court found a remand order to be appropriate. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding it afresh in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the cited case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the disallowance itself.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nanded. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is the ITAT's decision to delete a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance pertained to excessive sugarcane price paid by the assessee, a co-operative society, to its members and non-members. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history is that the Revenue has appealed the ITAT's deletion of the disallowance to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2) and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of excessive payment of sugarcane price to its members and non-members by the assessee (a co-operative society)? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is represented by Shri D L Khivesara. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, represented by Shri Alok Sharma, pressed the single issue mentioned above. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD.. VERSUS BHAURAO CHAVAN SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. , NANDED. ASG for Appellant : Shri Alok Sharma Advocate for Respondents : Shri D L Khivesara CORAM : D. G. KARNIK & S. B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: February 10, 2012 … PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. The only issue which is pressed on behalf of the Revenue in this appeal is:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2) and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of excessive payment of the sugarcane price paid to it's members and non-members by the assessee ( a co-operative society) ?” 4. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that identical issue was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Prarisar SSK Ltd. and others [(2010) 231 CTS (SC) 224] and in that case the matter has been remanded by the Supreme Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) for deciding it afresh in the light of akl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

TAX APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2008 directions issued by the Supreme Court therein. Since the issue involved in the present case is also identical, in our view, the remand order would be appropriate. Hence, we pass the following order.

5.

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding it afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and others [(2010)

CTS

(SC)

224]. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D. G. KARNIK, J. ) akl

More judgments on Section 40A(2)

All 542 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →