1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.930 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Perused appeal and impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the tribunal' for short). Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. 2. The substantial question sought to be raised in this appeal reads as under:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was corect in deleting the addition of Rs.98,12,359/- made by the assessing officer on account of difference between the market price of sugar and the concessional price at which sugar was sold to the cane growers by holding that no real income accrued to the assessee on the concessional sales and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to be assessed on the difference ? " 2 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/S. Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 ITR 222(Bom), wherein this Court while dealing with the identical question was required to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue based on the Central Board of Director Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.117, dated August 22, 1973, wherein he did not press the appeal to the extent of present question involved in the appeal i.e. fourth question. In the result, Revenue had accepted the order of the Tribunal and the same is holding the field. 4. The above Circular issued by the Board of Direct Taxes bearing No.117 dated 22nd August, 1973 reads as under:- " 389. Rebate allowed to members by consumer co- operatives Stores - Whether allowable as business deduction 1. I am directed to say that an instance has come to the notice of the Board wherein the Income-tax Officer in the case of consumer co-operative store had disallowed the claim of deduction on account of rebate allowed on the purchases made by the members of the store. 2. The Board in consultation with the Department of Community Development and Co-operation has decided that rebate or bonus (which is in the nature of deferred discount) passed on by the consumer co- operative stores to their members on the value of the purchases made by them during a year should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income of such a society. " 3 5. Mr.Gupta, in this appeal tried to draw a distinction on facts which have no role to play to take different view. He could not take his submissions to its logical end. The above CBDT circular will be very much applicable to the case in hand and the issue raised. 6. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)