Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CIT versus M/S U.P.ROHIOLKHEND TANAI GANASVIKASH NIGAM LTS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Cit v. M/S U.P.Rohiolkhend Tanai Ganasvikash Nigam Lts. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 11 of 1996 [2005] RD-AH 1004 (7 April 2005)

 

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

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.11 Of 1996.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow..   Applicant

Versus

M/S U.P. Rohilkhand Tarai Ganna Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bareilly.. Respondent.

...............

Hon'ble R. K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that only income derived by the assessee from sugarcane seed distribution was exempt under section 10 (29) of the Income Tax Act and not the entire income of the assessee company i.e. remaining income from interest was taxable?"

The present Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89.

We have heard Sri R.N.Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.

It has been stated by Sri R.N. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel that a similar question came up for consideration before this Court in I.T.R. No. 45 of 1994 decided on 23.03.2005 in the case of the respondent-assessee itself and this court has held that the income derived by the respondent-assessee from sugarcane seed distribution was exempt  under section 10 (29) of the Act.

Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question 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.

07.04.2005.

VS.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.