2022 (9) TMI 1702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment finding disallowing the assessee's deduction claim of Rs.46,02,85,111/- on account of the milk procurement price in the nature of "final rate difference", we note the impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under:- "3. Ground No. 1 raised in appeal relates to "distribution of profit under the guise of final rate difference". The ground raised by the appellant is reproduced below :- 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. has erred in law and on merit in disallowing the the Final Milk Rate / Rate difference paid by the assessee at Rs. 46,02,85,111/- when such Final Milk Rate paid was held as an allo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of the above, ground 1 is allowed." 3. Suffice to say, it has come on record that not only the assessee has succeeded on the very issue before hon'ble jurisdictional high court in it's own case (supra) in preceding assessment years but also the Revenue's special leave petition filed in hon'ble apex court stands declined. That being the case, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any need for us to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year in absence of any distinction pinpointed in all these assessment years. The CIT(A)'s conclusion granting the impugned relief to the assessee is upheld therefore. 4. Next comes the Revenue's latter substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat my predecessor has been dismissing this ground for the earlier AYs, against which the appellant had filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench. I further find that vide order dated 18/12/2018 for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 616 to 618/PUN/2016, the ITAT has allowed this ground of appeal. This 3rd ground raised before me is identical to the single ground raised before the ITAT by the assessee in the above mentioned appeals. On this ground, the Honhle ITAT has held as under: 8. We find that similar issue of claim of additional depreciation in the year consequent to the year of purchase and being put to use, arose before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Madhavan Nanu Pillai in ITA No. 2222/PN/2013, re....