Appeals partly allowed for fresh adjudication, following Supreme Court guidelines. Order issued on March 20, 2019.

The appeals were allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes, with issues remitted to the Assessing Officers for fresh adjudication following guidelines from the Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions. The order was pronounced on March 20, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Excess cane price paid by the assessees to sugarcane suppliers.
2. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the members/shareholders.
3. Disallowance of contribution towards Area Development Fund.
4. Provision for Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Contribution.
5. Disallowance of Employees Contribution towards PF.
6. Addition account of contribution towards Chief Minister relief fund.
7. Disallowance of interest u/s. 43B.
8. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Excess Cane Price Paid to Sugarcane Suppliers:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57, which dealt with the issue of excessive price paid for sugarcane. The Supreme Court directed that the difference between the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) and the State Advised Price (SAP) should be analyzed to determine the component of profit distribution. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officers (AOs) to determine the deductible expenditure and the profit component, following the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.

2. Sale of Sugar at Concessional Rates to Members/Shareholders:
This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (2012) 27 taxmann.com 162. The Tribunal directed the AOs to re-examine whether the difference between the market price and the concessional rate represents an appropriation of profit, considering the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The matter was remitted to the AOs for fresh adjudication.

3. Disallowance of Contribution to Area Development Fund:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Vs. CIT (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC), which remitted the matter for fresh determination. The Tribunal directed the AOs to decide the issue afresh, considering the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.

4. Provision for Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Contribution:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. (ITA No. 1414/PUN/2000), which was in favor of the assessees. No contrary material was placed on record. Thus, the issue was decided in favor of the assessees.

5. Disallowance of Employees Contribution towards PF:
The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306). The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) held that contributions made before the due date of filing the return are allowable. Since the contributions were made before the due date, the issue was decided in favor of the assessees.

6. Disallowance of Contribution towards Chief Minister Fund:
The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which directed the AOs to grant deduction under section 80G(iiihf) for contributions to the Chief Minister Relief Fund. The matter was remitted to the AOs for fresh adjudication.

7. Disallowance of Interest on Loans u/s. 43B:
The Tribunal noted that the loans were provided by the Government and disbursed through banks/financial institutions. The provisions of section 43B were not attracted. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and decided the issue in favor of the assessees.

8. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure:
The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 6/2007, which stated that such expenses are incurred for commercial expediency and are allowable. Consequently, the issue was decided in favor of the assessees.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes, with issues remitted to the AOs for fresh adjudication, following the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal's earlier decisions. The order was pronounced on March 20, 2019.

---