<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (5) TMI 600 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422340</link>
    <description>Excess sugarcane price paid to members and non-members was examined against the statutory minimum price under clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and the additional price under clause 5A. The legal point applied was that the minimum statutory price is deductible as business expenditure, but any profit component embedded in the final price must be excluded; for non-members, section 40A(2) required scrutiny of excessiveness or unreasonableness. Concessional sugar sales to members also required fresh examination on whether the price difference from market or levy price constituted taxable income, with trade practice, State policy and sales pattern needing factual verification. Both issues were restored for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2022 07:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 600 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422340</link>
      <description>Excess sugarcane price paid to members and non-members was examined against the statutory minimum price under clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and the additional price under clause 5A. The legal point applied was that the minimum statutory price is deductible as business expenditure, but any profit component embedded in the final price must be excluded; for non-members, section 40A(2) required scrutiny of excessiveness or unreasonableness. Concessional sugar sales to members also required fresh examination on whether the price difference from market or levy price constituted taxable income, with trade practice, State policy and sales pattern needing factual verification. Both issues were restored for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>