Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Case Remanded to Assessing Officer for Reevaluation of Sugarcane Price Dispute</h1> The ITAT Pune remanded the case to the Assessing Officer regarding the excess sugarcane price paid to members, emphasizing the need for evidence to ... Allowability of sugarcane price paid over and above FRP price - AO disallowed the excess price so paid by holding it to be the appropriation of profits - HELD THAT:- It is bounding duty of the Assessing Officer to examine the facts and circumstances under which the harvesting and transport expenses was paid to the farmers whether the payments were made over and above FRP exclusively for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer cannot jump to a conclusion that the payments are in the nature of appropriation of profits without examining the facts and circumstances under which the said excess payments were made. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 260 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the differential price cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that it is appropriation of profits without giving a finding as to whether there is any resolution passed authoring the society to pay such excess price. Also in the case of CIT vs. Aruna Sunrise Hotels Ltd., [2018 (5) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the excess price determined under sugarcane control is to be treated as allowable expenditure exclusively and for the purpose of business. Therefore, the finding of the lower authorities cannot be sustained. In our considered opinion, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer in order to meet the ends of justice to give a finding whether the excess price paid over and above FRP is out of the business expediency or appropriation of profit. If it is found that the excess payment was paid only out of business expediency consideration and the same should be allowed as deduction. Thus, this ground of appeal is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the lines indicated above. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of sale of sugar at concession rates to the members - The issue of disallowance on account of sale of sugar at concession rate to the members is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana [2012 (11) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the issue was remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to address the question raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. CIT(A) though adverted to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (supra) had not addressed the question raised therein with reference to material on record. Therefore, this issue also requires to be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to address the question raised by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (supra) after calling for requisite information from assessee society. Thus, this ground appeal also stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:- Allowability of sugarcane price paid over and above FRP price- Disallowance of sale of sugar at concession rates to membersAnalysis:1. Allowability of Sugarcane Price Paid Over and Above FRP Price:The appellant, a cooperative society engaged in sugar manufacturing, appealed against the addition made by the Assessing Officer for excess price paid to members over the minimum remunerative price fixed by the Government. The Assessing Officer considered this excess payment as an appropriation of profit. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, citing the scheme of price fixation and purchase of sugarcane. However, the ITAT Pune found that the Assessing Officer did not provide evidence to support the allegation of profit appropriation. The Tribunal noted that the excess payment was due to harvesting and transport expenses, as well as past payments, not exceeding the FRP price. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that the Assessing Officer must determine if the excess payment was for business expediency or profit appropriation. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination.2. Disallowance of Sale of Sugar at Concession Rates to Members:The second issue involved the disallowance of selling sugar at concessional rates to members. The ITAT Pune observed that this issue was similar to a case decided by the Supreme Court, where the matter was remanded for further consideration. The CIT(A) did not adequately address the Supreme Court's directive in the present case. Therefore, the ITAT directed the issue to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough review, in line with the Supreme Court's query. As a result, both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters remanded for fresh adjudication.In conclusion, the ITAT Pune's judgment focused on the need for proper examination and evidence before disallowing expenses as profit appropriations. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing whether expenditures were made for business purposes or as undue appropriations. The decision underscored the significance of legal precedents and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed review in both cases to ensure justice and compliance with legal standards.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found