TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members who supply milk and in some case also to non-members. The payment is for the quantity of milk supplied and in terms of the quality supplied. The commercial expediency for payment of this price are the market conditions, and the need to procure more milk from the members and non-members to the assessee. To our mind, therefore, the amount paid by no stretch of imagination can be said to be dividend to the members or shareholders or payment in the form of bonus as bonus also has to be paid from the accrued profits. - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided in its favour by the ITAT, Pun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t without deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Board, ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act ? 4) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any other grounds of appeal at the time of proceedings before the Hon ble Tribunal which may please be granted. 2. At the very outset, Ld. AR submitted that the Revenue s grounds no.1 and 2 are inter-connected. The facts therein are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 43,73,21,677/- to the member of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she / he was not following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court judgment (supra) on the ground that the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court (Supra) has not been accepted by the Department and SLP has been filed before Hon ble Supreme Court, which is pending. In other words, the addition has been made simply to keep the issue alive. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR vide written submissions filed before us submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case reported in 315 ITR 304 wherein it was held as follows :- Coming to our case (as we have noted this is not the case of distribution of profits) as the amount to be paid was not out of the profits ascertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue. 5. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case in Appeal No.1156 and 1157 of 2014 has dismissed the Revenue s appeal stating that the question as 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. 6. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and considered the judicial pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per grant agreement to purchase of machinery and/or equipments. The assessment to the tune of ₹ 33,18,20,381/- were transferred to Fixed Assets in F.Y. 1998-99 i.e. A.Y. 1999-2000. As per the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act, the depreciation should have been claimed after deducting ₹ 7,78,34,115/- from the actual cost of the assets. However, the Assessing Officer found that the depreciation has been claimed without deducting the said amount received as project grant from the NDDB. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the order that the Department has not accepted the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court which was in favour of the assessee and filed further appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition has been made simply to keep the issue alive. 10. At the time of hearing before us, Ld. AR referring to decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA Nos.2726 2727/PUN/2016 for the assessment years 2012-13 2013-14 submitted that the Tribunal has held on the issue as follows following the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision (supra) :- Similarly, the issue raised vide ground of appeal No.3 is squarely covered by the order of Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case relating to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the relief was given to assessee in earlier years, against which the Revenue had not filed any ground, though it had filed the appeal in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
