2013 (9) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad in the present appeal. However, we find that the question Nos. 1, 4 and 5, which are to the following effect "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified inlaw in upholding the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 27,00,000/- made on account of Production Incentive Bonus? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that Tubewell is a Plant? and (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) in allowing the claim of Molasses Reserve Fund?" have been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Income Tax vs. Rudra Bilas Sehkari Chini Mills Ltd) dated 5.9.2011. So far as the claim of mollases reserved is concerned (question no.5), the same has been decided in favour of assessee by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (269 ITR 397). The appeal was admitted on questions no. 2, 3 and 6. We are informed that in respect of same assessee, in Income Tax Appeal Defective No.113 of 2007 the question as to whether the CIT (A) was justified in upholding the deletion of disallowance out of guest house expenses has also been decided on 25.2.2010. The Court held that the expense incurred for the purposes of guest house is not the business expenses and is not liable to deduction. This leaves only questions no. 2 a....