2011 (7) TMI 664 - HC - Income Tax

Issue the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) to the assessee as sugar and molasses are not the marketable agricultural produces grown by the members? Main query the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) to the assessee as sugar and molasses are products of a complex manufacturing process which involves usage of Plant and Machinery. Held that Assessing Officer not to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act by relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 2002 253 ITR 659 (Punj. & Har.) and in the case of National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India - No deduction to the assessee on the ground that the sugar and molasses were by-products of a complex manufacturing process involving usage of plant and machinery.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1995-96. The main questions of law raised were whether the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be allowed to the assessee for sugar and molasses, and whether these products were marketable agricultural produce grown by the members. The assessee, a Cooperative Society engaged in marketing agricultural produce of its members, claimed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act in its return. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the claim, stating that sugar and molasses were by-products of a complex manufacturing process involving plant and machinery. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later allowed the deduction, emphasizing that for sugarcane, producing sugar was the primary marketing method for a cooperative society. The Tribunal, however, overturned this decision based on previous court rulings. Subsequent appeals and remands led to the Tribunal ultimately dismissing the revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee.

The High Court, upon hearing the arguments, considered whether the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) as it was involved in marketing agricultural produce of its members. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was supported by the Full Bench judgment in Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case and a previous order related to the same assessee. The counsel for the revenue acknowledged the applicability of the Full Bench judgment to the present case. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on relevant legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.