Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the revenue wherein three questions have been raised.
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the deduction in respect of Rs.9,36,103/- on excess realisation of levy sugar price which was a contingent liability and was not due for payment?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law not upholding the Assessing Officer's action in making addition of Rs.56,31,821/- made on account of extra sales realization on additional free sale quota under "Incentive Scheme 1988", ignoring the fact that the excess amount was realized by the assessee company as price of sugar sold by it during the course of assessee's trading activities and the same accordingly forms part of the trading receipt?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law not upholding the Assessing Officer's action in making addition of Rs.56,31,821/- made on account of extra sales realization on additional free sales quota under "Incentive Scheme 1988", ignoring decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. K.C.P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 245 ITR421?"
Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee.
Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel, has very fairly submitted that question no.1 is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No.2), reported in 274 ITR-370 which has been followed in the case of the assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal Defective 239 of 2005, decided on 6.8.2009 against the revenue and question nos. 2 and 3 are covered against the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., reported in (2009) 317 ITR 322 (All).
Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions all the three questions are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010 OP