← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(xvii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(xvii)22 judgments

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

ITA 17/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 225/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

ITA 224/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 222/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 213/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 212/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 211/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

price stands disclosed and accepted, the same must be\ntreated as Government approved price within the meaning of later\nlegislative enactments such as section 36(1)(xvii) and section 155(19) of the\nAct, which reflect the legislative intention to treat Government approved\ncane price as allowable business expenditure ... matter of regulatory\ncompliance, not a fiscal sanction.\n21.\nThe Id. CIT-DR then turned to the subsequent legislative\ndevelopments, viz. insertion of section 36(1)(xvii) by the Finance Act, 2015\n(effective from A.Y. 2016-17), and insertion of section 155(19) by the\nFinance

VISHWASRAO NAIK SAHAKARI KHARKHANA LTD,CHIKHALI vs. DCIT CIRCLE , SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2724/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2724/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Vs. Dcit, Circle, Sangli. Kharkhana Ltd., Gat. No.182/1, Yashwantnagar, Chikhali- 415408. Pan : Aaaav0215B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(xvii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1653/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb V The Deputy Thorat Ssk Ltd., S Commissioner Of At Amrutnagar, P.O.Sangamner, Income Tax, Circle, Tal.Sangamner, Ahmednagar. Dist.Ahmednagar, Maharashtra – 422608. Pan: Aaaas3893G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir M. Bapat – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order 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 & Non Members. The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Be Deleted.

Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xvii)Section 4Section 5(1)Section 5(3)

relevant order. Ld.AR submitted that assessee has purchased sugar cane at a price of Rs.2,500/- per metric ton. Therefore, as per section 36(1)(xvii), the entire expenditure is allowable. However, ld.AR also submitted a written note which is reproduced as under : “Appellant is a co-operative sugar factory ... these laws are to be read together. Also it is to be noted that complying with both laws is mandatory on the assessee. Section 36(1)(xvii) provides that the amount of expenditure incurred by a co-operative society engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar for purchase

VITTHAL SAHAKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1540/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Ashta Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. / Ita Nos.1540/Pun/2024 / Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakar Vs Acit Circle1, Solapur Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Gursale, Tal. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur-413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaas3892H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. Hanmant Dhavle (Ar) Revenue By Mr.Arvind Desai (Dr) Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of 31/12/2024 Pronouncement / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 30.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.4,56,57,548/- On Account Of Excess Sugar Cane Price

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xvii)

sugarcane at a price which is equal to or less than the price fixed or approved by the Government.. Thus as per section 36(1)(xvii) the sugar cane price fixed by Government is allowed as deduction . In this case admittedly the assessee has paid more price than ... Price fixed by government. Therefore, as per section 36(1)(xvii) only the amount paid as per the price fixed by the government is allowed as deduction . Therefore, the AO was right in making the disallowance of the excess price paid above the price fixed by Government. Accordingly, we uphold

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 76/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 75/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 74/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 73/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 72/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 71/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 70/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,SANGALI vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 69/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shubhada A. KoppaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 1Section 154Section 155(19)Section 36(1)(xvii)

various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii) vide its Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards providing for deduction for such a sugarcane price “which is equal ... only for his afresh appropriate adjudication in tune with section 155(19) (for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17) and as per section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act (for A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), respectively. We accordingly restore assessee’s instant identical foregoing substantive ground back to the learned

KRANTIAGRANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 78/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakarisakharkarkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.67 & 68/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309.Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubhada A Koppa – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

this judgment, the Finance Act, 2023, brought in clause (19) in section 155 in the Income tax Act to extend the provisions of section 36(1)(xvii) to the years prior to AY 2016-17. CBDT issued a Circular 14 of 2023 specifying SOPs for the assessee Co-op Sugar

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2