9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] (2) Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [ 2009 (4) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which has been applied in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2009-10 and following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue. - ITA Nos. 578 to 580/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM For the Appellant : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT. For the Respondent : Shri Sushant Phadnis. ORDER Per Sushma Chowla, JM : All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are against consolidated order of CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur, dated 28.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is the cost as reduced by that portion of the cost, which has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority? 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the orders of Tribunal in assessee s own case and also by the orders of Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case. Our attention was drawn to the orders of Tribunal and the Hon ble Bombay High Court as under:- (i) ITA Nos.401/PN/2005 to 405/PN/2005, relating to assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02, order dated 26.09.2005 (ii) CIT Vs. (1) Solapur Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers and Process Union Ltd. (2) Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak San ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the payment of rate difference after the closure of the accounting year do not amount to distribution of profit, as the amount to be paid was not out of the profit ascertained at the annual general meeting? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was prospective being substantive law in nature and content de hors the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 224 ITR 557? 8. The decision on question No.(a) was as under:- 3. Reg. Question (a):- (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as the impugned order of the Tribunal has merely followed its own orders for the earlier Assessment Years, which have been accepted by the Revenue. Thus, not entertained. 10. The first issue which arises in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. (1) Solapur Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers and Process Union Ltd. (2) Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (supra), which has been applied in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2009-10 and following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
