The Commissioner opposed those applications Overruling his objections, this Court granted leave and directed registration of the appeals.
He came to the companyclusion that the price actually paid by the assessee must be taken into companysideration in companyputing the income of the assessee.
Identical questions of law had companye up for companysideration in the assessees assessment for the earlier assessment years, namely, assessment years 1957 58, 58 59, 59 60 and 60 61.
The Income Tax Officer disallowed the payments made by the assessee to the producer members in excess of the minimum price fixed and companyputed the income of the assessee on that basis.
In respect of those assessments the Tribunal had taken the same view which it has taken in the assessments before us These appeals relate to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1961 62, 62 63 and 63 64 .
Thereafter, the Commissioner had moved the High Court Under Section 66 2 .
In those cases also the Commissioners applications Under Section 66 1 had been rejected by the Tribunal.
This is a strange attitude.
Those applications were rejected by the High Court.
The Tribunal rejected the applications made by the Commissioner Under Section 66 1 for a reference to the High Court of certain questions of law said to arise from its Order.
His special leave petitions had been rejected by this Court.When these appeals came up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the Commissioner reported that his instructions are number to oppose the appeals.
The Order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was companyfirmed by the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the Commissioner moved the High Court Under Section 66 2 and the High Court, as mentioned earlier, called upon the Tribunal to submit three questions for its decision.
Certain other facilities were also made available to them by the assessee.
Under the circumstances, we have to decide these appeals without the assistance of the learned Counsel for the Commissioner.
The Order of the Income Tax Officer was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Amongst its members, there is a class of members known as producer members, who have registered some portions of their lands with the assessee.
The facts of the case shortly stated are these The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar.
Those members supplied sugar cane grown in those lands to the appellants factory and they were paid price for the sugarcane supplied at a rate higher than the minimum price prescribed by the Government.
When the special leave applications came up before this Court for admission, this Court directed numberice to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona.
S. Hegde, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Order made by the High Court of Bombay in an application Under Section 66 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, calling upon the Tribunal to submit certain questions of law said to arise from the Order of the Tribunal.
