TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessment Year the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,19,81,934/- observing that the sale of sugar at concessional rate was nothing but an appropriation of profit and in the nature of application of income. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolhapur. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolhapur by order dated 17/3/2009 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate relying on the decision of jurisdiction Tribunal in the case of Chhatrapati Shahu S.S.K. Ltd. in ITA No.1925/PN/90 and also CBDT's Circular No.117 (1974)/94 ITR (STAT) 0001 A. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant-Revenue preferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above difference between the fair market price and the concessional price should or should not be added to the total income of the assessee(s) Society, needs to be re-looked by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, `CIT (A)']. Apart from the afore-stated question, CIT (A) would take into account, whether the above-mentioned practice of selling sugar at concessional rate has become the practice or custom in the Co-operative Sugar Industry?; and whether any Resolution has been passed by the State Government supporting the practice? The CIT (A) would also consider on what basis the quantity of the final product, i.e., sugar, is being fixed for sale to farmers/cane growers/Members each year on month-to-month basis, apart f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals-II), Pune. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals-II), Pune partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant-Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the ITAT"). The ITAT by its order dated 30/10/2009 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Revenue preferred an appeal in the Bombay High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act raising following question of law: "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference between the market price of sugar and concessional price at which sugar was sold to the cane grower....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ITAT order and dismissed the appeals. 3. Our attention is drawn to order dated 25/09/2012 in Civil Appeal No.6949 of 2012 and companion appeals, where questions similar to questions `A' and `B' hereinabove were involved. This Court by the said order remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). This Court observed as under: "The question, whether the above difference between the fair market price and the concessional price should or should not be added to the total income of the assessee(s) Society, needs to be re-looked by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, `CIT (A)']. Apart from the afore-stated question, CIT (A) would take into account, whether the above-mentioned practice of selli....