Tribunal remits excess cane price & sugar sale issues for fresh determination. Assessee wins on Khodki charges & VSI contribution.

The Tribunal's consolidated order remitted the issues of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination in line with the Supreme Court's directives. Regarding Khodki charges and VSI contribution, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing deductions for both. The appeals were partially allowed for statistical purposes, with instructions for the AO to reassess the matters based on the provided guidelines and legal precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Additional payment on account of cane price under Clause 5A of the Sugar Control Order.
2. Addition made on account of sale of sugar to members and non-members.
3. Addition made on account of Khodki charges.
4. Addition made on account of VSI contribution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Additional Payment on Account of Cane Price under Clause 5A of the Sugar Control Order:
The primary issue relates to the "Excess Cane Price paid to Sugarcane Suppliers." The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). The Supreme Court elaborated that the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) determined under Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, is deductible in its entirety. However, the additional price determined under Clause 5A, which includes an element of profit distribution, cannot be entirely deductible. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) to determine the component of distribution of profit embedded in the price paid under Clause 5A. The AO is directed to consider the accounts, balance sheet, and material supplied to the State Government for fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under Clause 5A. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh determination in line with the Supreme Court's directions.

2. Addition Made on Account of Sale of Sugar to Members and Non-Members:
The issue of selling sugar at concessional rates was addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (2012) 27 taxmann.com 162 (SC). The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the CIT(A) to consider whether selling sugar at concessional rates had become a customary practice in the cooperative sugar industry and whether it was supported by a State Government resolution. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh consideration, following the Supreme Court's directions. The AO is to determine if the difference between the market price and the concessional price is an appropriation of profit.

3. Addition Made on Account of Khodki Charges:
The issue of Khodki charges was considered and adjudicated by the Tribunal in ITA No.308/PUN/2018 & Others. The Tribunal noted that Khodki charges were paid to compensate farmers for the loss in weight due to uneven cutting of cane sugar during harvesting, as directed by the Director of Sugar. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Manjara Shetkari SSK Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 191 (Bom.) upheld the deduction for such charges. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction for Khodki charges.

4. Addition Made on Account of VSI Contribution:
The issue of VSI contribution was considered by the Tribunal in ITA No.308/PUN/2018 & Others. The AO had disallowed the provision for VSI contribution, as it was not paid to the institute and was only a provision. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the case of Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. (ITA No.1414/PUN/2000), allowed the deduction for VSI contribution. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction for VSI contribution.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's consolidated order restored the issues of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates to the AO for fresh determination, following the Supreme Court's directions. The issues of Khodki charges and VSI contribution were decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the respective deductions. The appeals were allowed partly for statistical purposes, with specific directions for the AO to re-examine the issues based on the provided guidelines and precedents.

---