The Commissioner Of Income ... vs The Vidarbha Cooperative ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 86 Bom

                                             1




                                                                                       
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

                               NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.




                                                               
                      INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 15 OF 1998




                                                              
    Commissioner of Income Tax,
    Vidarbha, Nagpur.                              ....    APPLICANT.


                    -VERSUS -




                                                 
    The Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
    Nagpur.                         ig   .... RESPONDENT.

                            ....
    Mr. Anand Parchure with Bhushan Mohta Advocate for the Applicant.
                                  
    Mr. Kishor Dewani Advocate for the Respondent.
                              ....

                      CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

DATED : 25th February, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

Heard Advocate Parchure with Advocate Bhushan Mohta

for the applicant/revenue and Advocate Dewani for the

respondent/assessee.

2. Following questions have been referred to this Court under

Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of assessee.

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

the Tribunal was correct in allowing rebate in respect of sale

of fertilisers to its members and non members and in directing the

Income Tax Officer to delete the disallowance?

(ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that

the rebate in respect of sale cannot be treated as on

application of profit and it has no connection in profit of the

assessee, which could be treated as an application of profit

and the decision so arrived at was in accordance with the

provisions of law?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the

CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer

on account of Provident Fund paid after the "due date" but

during the grace period?

3. With the assistance of Advocate Dewani and Advocate

Parchure with Advocate Mohta we have perused the papers. We find that

total disputed claim about rebate is not in excess of Rs.04,68,400/-.

Similarly, the disallowed claim of Provident Fund is quantified at

Rs.01,33,552/-. Therefore, total claim of Department does not exceed

Rs.06,25,000/- and the tax effect does not and cannot exceed Rs. Twenty

lacs. In this situation, following Instruction No. 21 dated 10.12.2015 issued

by CBDT so also Instruction No. 5 of 2008, we return the Reference

unanswered.

                             JUDGE                        JUDGE

     /TA/