ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,, KOLHAPUR
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 1040/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2020AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1040/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/S. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur-416003. Pan: Aaaak0230D ..……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kesang Y. Sherpa Assessee By : Shri Sushant Phadnis सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2020 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal)-1, Kolhapur Dated 17.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record: “1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Was Justified In Holding That The Payment Of Rate Difference Of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- After The Closure Of The Accounting Year Do Not Amount To Distribution Of Profits, As The Amount To Be Paid Was Not Out Of The Profits Ascertained At The Annual General Meeting ? 2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Was Justified In Holding That The Payment Of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- On Account Of Rate Difference Is Out Of Commercial Expediency, When There Is No Demand From Milk Suppliers ? 3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7,28,153/- Made By The Ao Towards Depreciation On Fixed Assets On Project Without Deducting Subsidy
For Appellant: Shri Sushant PhadnisFor Respondent: Smt. Kesang Y. Sherpa
Section 43(1)
…ition has been made simply to keep the issue alive.” 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR vide written submissions filed before us submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble 3 Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case reported in 315 ITR 304 wherein it was held as follows :- “Coming to our case (as we have noted this is not the case of distribution of profits) as the amount to be paid was not out of the profits ascertained at the annual general meeting, it is not paid to all shareholders. The amount which is the subject-matter is paid to members who supply milk and in some case also…
