THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD vs. HUTATMA JAYWANTRAO PATIL SAHAKARISAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. NANDED

PDF · subscribers
TA/128/2008HC BombayHCBM03021544200810 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 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. Following this precedent, the High Court found that a remand order would be appropriate for the present case. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal 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.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad (Revenue) filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Hutatma Jaywantrao Patil Sahakarisakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nanded. The appeal concerns assessment years not specified in the judgment. The dispute revolves around the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 40A(2) and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to alleged excessive sugarcane price paid by the assessee, a co-operative society, to its members and non-members. The High Court heard the appeal at the admission stage by consent of the parties.

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 co-operative society)? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 40A(2) and 37(1) concerning excessive sugarcane price payments.

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. 128 OF 2008 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD VERSUS HUTATMA JAYWANTRAO PATIL SAHAKARISAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.NANDED ASG for Appellant : Shri Alok Sharma Advocate for Respondent : Shri R.M.Sharma 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. 128 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 →