bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1445 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 22ND 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 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 ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments by the Co.Op. Society were not excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of Section 40A(2) of the Act in respect of the members and that non members within the meaning of Section 37(1) of the Act ? c) 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 ? d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 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 ? e) 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 ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right deleting the addition made on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to members when it is nothing but diversion of profit, relying on the decisions of Pune Bench Tribunal number 1924-26/PN/90 dated 1st August, 1996 in the case of Shri Chhatrapati Shahu S.S.K. Ltd. Kagal and also relying on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Shree Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 250 ITR 772 ? 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states, that so far as question Nos.(a) to (e) 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.(f) 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 the appeal stands dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)