TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....818/PUN/2016, 874/PUN/2014, 601/PUN/2012, 602/PUN/2012, 134/PUN/2013, 2606/PUN/2012, 42/PUN/2012, 43/PUN/2012, 82/PUN/2012, 83/PUN/2012, 84/PUN/2012, 55/PUN/2012, 136/PUN/2012, 137/PUN/2012, 138/PUN/2012, 298/PUN/2012, 299/PUN/2012, 300/PUN/2012, 257/PUN/2012, 2084/PUN/2012, 2254/PUN/2012, 391/PUN/2013, 1023/PUN/2014, 804/PUN/2014, 1254/PUN/2014, 2293/PUN/2014, 2294/PUN/2014, 2295/PUN/2014, 2296/PUN/2014, 2161/PUN/2012, 2594/PUN/2012, 1181/PUN/2016, C.O. No.16/PUN/2018, 1913/PUN/2016, 2064/PUN/2016, 2283/PUN/2012, 730/PUN/2014, 731/PUN/2014, 732/PUN/2014, 571/PUN/2011, 572/PUN/2011, 574/PUN/2011, 1089/PUN/2011, 1090/PUN/2011, 678/PUN/2014, 1210/PUN/2011, 1211/PUN/2011, 1418/PUN/2011, 1601/PUN/2011, 1602/PUN/2011, 1625/PUN/2011, 1626/PUN/2011, 2451/PUN/2012, 2530/PUN/2012, 2532/PUN/2012 2007-08, 2009-10 Appasaheb Nalawade Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Yashwant Rao Mohite Krishna SSK Ltd., Shri Someshwar SSK Ltd., Shri Vridheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus DCIT And DCIT, ACIT, Circle-1, Sangli. Versus Vasant Rao Dada Patil S.S.K. Ltd., Kranti SSK Ltd., Kadwa Sahakari Ltd., M/s Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i. Disallowance of contribution towards Area Development Fund. ii. Provision for Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Contribution. iii. Disallowance of Employees Contribution towards PF. iv. Addition account of contribution towards Chief Minister relief fund. v. Disallowance of interest u/s. 43B. vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in bunch of appeals. The facts and issues raised in present appeals are similar. The Ld. DR furnished copy of order of Tribunal dated 14-03-2019 vide which bunch of 162 appeals were disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, the lead case being Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 308/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. After hearing both the sides and after considering the order of Coordinate Bench in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Ka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... growers and factories, to be worked out in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Control Order, 1966. Their Lordships noted that at the time when additional purchase price is determined/fixed under clause 5A, the accounts are settled and the particulars are provided by the concerned Co-operative Society as to what will be the expenditure and what will be the profit etc. Considering the fact that Statutory Minimum Price (SMP), determined under clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966, which is paid at the beginning of the season, is deductible in the entirety and the difference between SMP determined under clause 3 and SAP/additional purchase price determined under clause 5A, has an element of distribution of profit which cannot be allowed as deduction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the file of the AO for considering the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price is decided. He has been directed to carry out an exercise of considering accounts/balance sheet and the material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966 and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law in consonance with the articulation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgment. The AO would allow deduction for the price paid under clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 and then determine the component of distribution of profit embedded in the price paid under clause 5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause. The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction, while the remaining amount, being a charge against the income, will be considered as deductible expenditure. At this stage, it is made clear that the distribution of profits can only be qua the payments made to the members. In so far as the non-members are concerned, the case will be considered afresh by the AO by applying the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween the market price and the concessional price at which sugar (final product) was given to farmers and cane growers. In this regard, it is observed that this issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (2012) 27 taxmann.com 162 (SC). Vide judgment dated 25-092012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the difference between the average price of sugar sold in the market and the price of sugar sold by the assessee to its members at concessional rate was taxed by the Department under the head "Appropriation of profit". The Hon'ble Summit Court remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for considering, inter alia,: "whether the abovementioned 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 from others from Diwali?" The issue under consideration can be decided by an approp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e treated as income of the assessee. Eventually, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter back for fresh determination. It is noticed that in the appeals under consideration, the ld. CITs(A) have not considered the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (supra) and decided the issue without taking note of the factors directed to be considered in the aforenoted case. In view of the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we set-aside such impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of the respective AOs for deciding the issue afresh in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment." 10. Both the sides are unanimous in stating that the issue in present set of appeals is identical to the one already decided by the Co-ordinate Bench. Thus, in view of the order by Co-ordinate Bench this issue is decided in the same terms. Accordingly, the issue is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. Provision for Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Contribution  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of appeals it is not disputed by the Revenue that the contribution was made before the due date of filing return of income. Thus, in view of well settled law and the facts of the case, this issue is decided in favour of the assessees. Disallowance of Contribution towards Chief Minister Fund 15. Another issue in some of the appeals is disallowance of contribution by assessees towards Chief Minister relief fund. We find that this issue has been considered by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and has held as under : "21. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee did make contribution to the Chief Minister Relief Fund. As against the assessee claiming the entire amount as deduction in its Profit and loss account, the AO opined that the said contribution was eligible for deduction u/s. 80G(iiihf) of the Act at the rate of 50% along with other qualifying sums. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the entire addition overlooking the fact that deduction u/s.80G(iiihf) was not allowed by the AO on such contribution in the computation of total income. Unde....