SAHAKARMAHARSHI BHAUSAHEB THORAT SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1653/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the price fixed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013, even if higher than the Central Government's FRP, is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(xvii) of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT circular clarified this position.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative sugar factory, paid Rs. 2,500/- per metric ton for sugarcane. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the excess amount paid over the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) determined by the Central Government, making an addition of Rs. 15,54,94,967/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the sugarcane price paid by a co-operative sugar factory, as determined by the State Government, is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(xvii) of the Income Tax Act, even if it exceeds the FRP fixed by the Central Government.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(xvii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Mihir M. Bapat – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT(DR)
Hearing: 11/12/2024Pronounced: 10/03/2025

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Add.Commissioner of Income Tax/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 15.06.2024 for A.Y.2017-18. “1. The A.O. has erred in adding to income of Rs.15,54,94,967/- being excess sugar cane price paid to members and non Members. The addition made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.

ITA No.1653/PUN/2024 [A]

2.

Not appreciating the fact that the price determined by State Government unde

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(xvii)

All 30 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(xvii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →