bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.987 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.988 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Deshbhakta Ratnappa Kumbhar Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. Following substantial questions of law sought to be raised in the present appeal : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 40(2)(a) of the Act are not applicable to the payments made by the Co.Op. Society to members towards purchase price of cane supplied ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the additional payment over and above the statutory minimum price (SMP) was cane price and not diversion of profit and as such allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments by the Co.Op. Society wee not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of Section 40A(2) of the Act in respect of members and that too non members within the meaning of Section 37(1) of the Act? d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the price “actually” paid by the Society for the procurement of the sugar cane is to be allowed as business expenditure ? e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the excess amount of expenditure on sugar cane purchase price was a charge on profit i.e. diversion of profit and appropriation of profit ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the additional amount paid by the Society after the finalisation of the financial results for the year under consideration can be considered to be price paid for procurement of sugar cane and allowed as business expenditure ? g) Whether the Tribunal was justified in following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 250 ITR 772, where the issue involved before the Court was totally different and there was no disallowance made under Section 40A(2) of the Act ? h) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of sugar supplied to members at concessional rate ? 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states, that so far as question Nos.(a) to (g) are concerned, the same are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 191 and question No.(h) is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kisanvir Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. decided on 30 th June, 2009 in ITXA No.930 of 2008. 4. In the above view of the matter both the appeals stand dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)