9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh consideration – Decided in favour of revenue. - Special Leave Appeal (C) No(s). 12240/2014 SLP(C) No. 12568/2014 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2014 - Ranjana Prakash Desai And N. V. Ramana,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar For the Respondent : None ORDER Special Leave Petition (Civil) 12240/2014:- 1. The respondent-assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of production of sugar from sugarcane and sale of sugar. During the course of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 1,19,81,934/- observing that the sale of sugar at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der on the basis of Circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22/8/1973 whereby a decision was taken to allow rebate given to members of the Consumer Co-operative Stores as deduction in computing business income of the Society. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-Revenue has approached this Court. 3. Our attention is drawn to order dated 25/09/2012 in Civil Appeal No.6949 of 2012 and companion appeals, where similar question was involved. This Court by the said order remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). This Court observed as under: The question, whether the above difference between the fair market price and the concessional price should or should not be added to the total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed of. Special Leave Petition(C) NO.12568 OF 2014:- Delay is condoned. 1. The respondent-assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of sugar. During the course of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer found inclusion of various sums under different heads of expenditure. Being dissatisfied, the Assessing Officer made various additions to the assessee's total income. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals-II), Pune. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals-II), Pune partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax act, S.37(1) of the Income-tax Act uses the words wholly and exclusively for purpose of business as condition for allow ability of expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and thus lays more strict requirement u/s. 37(1) of the Act as distinguished from Sec.28 to 36 of the Income-tax Act? 2. Relying on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.930 of 2008 in CIT v. Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. dated 30/6/2009 and in Income Tax Appeal No.151 of 2011 in CIT v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. dated 20/11/2012, the High Court affirmed the ITAT order and dismissed the appeals. 3. Our attention is drawn to order dated 25/09/2012 in Civil Appeal No.6949 of 2012 and compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
