TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (2015 (8) TMI 520 - SUPREME COURT) following its judgment in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012 (9) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT ) remanded the matter back for adjudicating the issue afresh. Thus the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. - ITA No. 419 of 2009 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-10-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M.R. Sharma, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Adv JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 419 and 560 of 2009 as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as grossly erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowing the depreciation amounting to ₹ 3,87,637/- in respect of distillery unit having common management, premises, employees, electricity supply etc. etc. can be disallowed? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has grossly erred in denying the deduction to the appellant being a cooperative society from the marketing of agriculture produce being sugarcane of its grower members u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? 3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2003 for the assessment year 2003-04 decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ] who vide order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) upheld the order of respondent No.2 with regard to the disallowance of expenditure as well as taxing ₹ 25,15,00,000/- being the amount of loan converted into grants-in-aid under Section 28(iv) of the Act and also disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2) (a)(iii) of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) upheld the orders passed by respondent No.2 and the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
