TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciated the effect of statutory provision of U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and the Rules made there under, the receiving are not Income u/s 2(24) of the I. T. Act. In accordance to these provisions total receiving cannot be treated as "Income". 3. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not appreciated that as per the Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and the Rules made there under, it is mandatory on the Assessee to utilize the entire amount of "contribution in the form of commission" received from Sugar Mills and co-operative cane growers society and "Grants", received ..from State Government and Central Sugar Cane Committees for specified purposes being "construction of road" and "other development works" in the "assigned area" either during the year of receipt or in subsequent year /s and not otherwise. Accordingly, the entire receiving cannot be treated as Income under section 2(24) of I. T. Act. 4. The Ld. C. I. T. (Appeals), did not appreciated that appellant has received "contribution in the form of commission" and "Grants" in accordance with the Act and Rules made by State Government to be utilized only for "specific projects" or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT (A) dt. 18.02.2014 in the case of M/s. Cane Development Council, Rozagaon, Faizabad and the Orders of the Tribunalin the following cases:- (i) Additional CIT Vs. N.S. Committee in ITA No. 1541/Del/2008. (ii) ITO Vs Cane Development Counsel in ITA No.5602, 5603/Del/2011 & 3209/Del/2012. (iii) ACIT Vs Water and Sanitation Management Organization in ITA No.2804/Ahd/2009. Relinacewas also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble AllahabadHigh Court in the case of CIT Vs U.P. UpbhoktaSahkariSangh Limited reported in 288 ITR 106. The copy of the aforesaid orders are placed on record. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that since the receipts were received for specific purpose either from the Government or any other agency, it would not partake the character of Income u/s 2 (24) of Act. 8. The Ld. D.R. simply placed the reliance upon the order of the CIT (A). 9. Having carefully examined the orders of the Lower authorities and judgments filed before us in the light of rival submissions, we are of the considered view that since the above Grants or receipts are received by the assessee either from the government or any other agency for a parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disposal. It is further mentioned here that the said roads, culverts, etc. are constructed by the appellant on the land belonging to the govt. and constructions made by the appellant there on also belongs to the govt. as absolute owner and not to the appellant or anybody else. The funds received by the assessee are either by way of (a) voluntary grant from the Central or state Govt. or (b) contribution in the name of commission from the sugar mills, as provided u/s 8 of the aforesaid Act. As per rule 49 of the aforesaid rules, this contribution amount in the name of commission is worked out the Sugar Mill with reference to the amount of purchase of the sugar cane by it from the cane growers are the Cane Grower's Cooperative Society. Addressing the amount the commission, it is stated that it is worked out and paid by the Sugar Mill to the appellant, is not sold/supplied by the appellant to the sugar mill nor any service is rendered by the appellant to the Sugar Mill paying amount in the name of commission to the appellant as there is no provision under the aforesaid Act and Rule for it, hence the amount paid by the Sugar Mill to the appellant thought is in the name of commission but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken a view in para 6 which reads as under :- "We have heard the Ld. DR and gone through facts on the case indisputably, the Ansh Dan and fund for NirmanYojna, where given to the assessee by the State Government & Sugar factories for specific projects of the road construction and as pointed out by the Ld.CIT(A) this funds have been spend also for those specific project. There is nothing to suggest that the assessee is carrying on any business activities, generating income. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there was no surplus with the assessee and therefore, there was no question of any taxable income. Admittedly, the grant-inaid in question is a financial aid or subsidy given by the State Government of UP and Sugar factories for the specific purpose of construction of roads. In section 2 (24) of the Act, it is declared that "income includes" various items which are enumerated therein in clauses (i) to (xv). In the said section 2(24), such a grant-in-aid has not been specifically included as an income or a revenue receipt. Therefore, considering the use for the worked "include" in section 2(24), the word "income shall be construed as comprehending not only those i....