TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- after the closure of the accounting year do not amount to distribution of profits, as the amount to be paid was not out of the profits ascertained at the Annual General Meeting ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- on account of rate difference is out of commercial expediency, when there is no demand from milk suppliers ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,28,153/- made by the AO towards depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Boar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....005 dt. 26/09/2005 and also covered in the latest decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dt. 04/04/2009 in appellant's own case reported in 315 ITR 304. I also find that similar additions were deleted by the CIT(A), Kolhapur for A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Respectfully following the above decision, the addition made on account of milk rate difference is deleted. In view of the above, the ground of appeal is allowed. 7. It is pertinent to note that while making the addition, the A. O. has only followed the assessment order of the earlier year without bringing any new facts on record. It is mentioned in the assessment order that she / he was not following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment (supra) on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als dismissed." 4. This was followed by the ITAT in assessee's own case vide ITA Nos.2726 & 2727/PUN/2016 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 and it was held as follows :- "The first issue which arises in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. (1) Solapur Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers and Process Union Ltd. (2) Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (supra), which has been applied in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2012-13 and following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue." 5. The Ld. AR further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue was not submitted before us. Therefore, on date, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Grounds no.1 and 2 of the Revenue are dismissed. 8. Regarding the next ground which is in relation to the deletion of addition of Rs. 7,28,153/- made by the Assessing Officer towards depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). The facts regarding this issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is in receipt of Project Subsidy of Rs. 7,78,34,115/- from NDDB as per grant agreement to purchase of machinery and/or equipments. The assessment to the tune of Rs. 33,18,20,381/- were transferred to F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the above decisions, the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation on building & machinery is deleted. In view of the above, the ground of appeal is allowed. 12. It is pertinent to note that while making the addition, the A.O. has only followed the assessment order of the earlier year without bringing any new facts on record. It is mentioned in the assessment order that the decision of Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai was not being followed as the Department had filed further appeal before the honourable Supreme Court, which is pending for adjudication. In other words, the addition has been made simply to keep the issue alive." 10. At the time of hearing before us, Ld. AR referring to decision of the Tribunal in assessee's o....