Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1637 - AT - Income TaxBusiness expenditure - Excess Cane Price Paid to Sugarcane Suppliers over and above the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) fixed by State Government for purchase of cane. - HELD THAT:- In view of the statement made by both the sides that the facts in the present set of appeals are identical, the issue relating to excess sugarcane price paid by the assessee is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions as above in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2019 (3) TMI 906 - ITAT PUNE] . AO shall decide the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respective assessees, in accordance with law. Sale of Sugar at Concessional rates to the Members/Shareholders - HELD THAT:- Issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates has also been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2019 (3) TMI 906 - ITAT PUNE] remitted the issue of payment of excessive price to the file of AO, and as such, the instant issue cannot be sent to ld. CIT(A) as it would amount to simultaneously sending one part of the same assessment order to the AO and other to the CIT(A), which is not appropriate. Disallowance of contribution to Area Development Fund - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that in the appeals under consideration, the ld. CITs(A) have not considered the impact of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited [2004 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and decided the issue without taking note of the factors directed to be considered in the aforenoted case. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we set-aside such impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of the respective AOs for deciding the issue afresh in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment. Provision for Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Contribution to be allowed in favour of the assessee. Disallowance of Employees contribution towards Provident Fund - HELD THAT:- The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] after considering the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] held that deduction to be allowed only on actual payments before the due date of filing return of income and the amended provisions of section 43B applies to both employee’s and employer’s contribution. In the present set of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that the contribution was made before the due date of filing return of income. Thus, in view of well settled law and the facts of the case, this issue is decided in favour of the assessees. Disallowance of Contribution towards Chief Minister Fund - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been considered by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT .[2019 (3) TMI 906 - ITAT PUNE] we cannot uphold the disallowance of the entire amount claimed as deduction by the assessee in its Profit and loss account. Approving the additions made, we remit the matter to the file of the AO for granting the deduction u/s.80G(iiihf) as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee Disallowance of Interest on Loans u/s. 43B - HELD THAT:- The said resolution is in connection with mid term loan granted to the sugar factories at interest rate of 2% per annum. The loan has been provided by the Government and has been disbursed through banks/financial institutions. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. It is not a case where the loans have been granted to the sugar factories by the banks/financial institutions. Thus, in the peculiar facts of the case we concur with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the provisions of section 43B are not attracted. We confirm the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Consequently, the issue is decided in favour of the assessees. Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure - HELD THAT:- In view of CBDT Circular No. 6/2007, dated 11-10-2007 the harvesting and transportation expenditure are allowable. Consequently, the issue is decided in favour of the assessees.
|