C.I.T. LUCKNOW versus M/S. U.P. ROHILKHAND TARAI GANNA BEIJ EVAM VIKAS NIGAM LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

C.I.T. Lucknow v. M/S. U.P. Rohilkhand Tarai Ganna Beij Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 197 of 1985 [2004] RD-AH 968 (30 September 2004)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

I.T.R. No.197 of 1985

C.I.T., Lucknow v. U.P. Rohilkhand Tarai Ganna Beej Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. Bareilly.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the income derived by the assessee company was exempt under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

The reference relates to Assessment year 1978-79.  

We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan,  learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the question referred to us is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court given in  Income Tax Reference No.86  of 1985, Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. M/s Uttar Pradesh Rohilkhand Tarai Ganna Beej Vikas Nigam Limited, Bareilly, decided on 3rd September, 2004 and I.T.R. No.178 of 1984, decided on 10th February, 2004.wherein this court has answered this question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, which is inter partes, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

30.9.2004

mt

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.