THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD. vs. TERNA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TA/86/2008HC BombayHCBM03015097200810 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 held that the issue involved in the present case is identical to the one decided by the Supreme Court in 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 fresh decision in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court found it appropriate to pass a similar remand order. 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the disallowance itself.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad (Revenue) appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be under review. The Revenue challenges the ITAT's deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 40A(2) and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These disallowances were related to excessive sugarcane price paid by the assessee, a cooperative society, to its members and non-members. The High Court heard the appeal by consent at the admission stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the 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 cooperative society)? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the disallowance. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Prarisar SSK Ltd. and others [(2010) 231 CTS (SC) 224], noting that the Supreme Court had remanded a similar matter for fresh consideration.

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. 86 OF 2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD. VERSUS TERNA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. ASG for Appellant : Shri Alok Sharma Advocates for Respondent : Shri A.A.Nimbalkar h/f Shri V D Salunke 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. 86 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 →