Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus M/S DISTT COOPRTIVE FEDERATION

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. M/S Distt Cooprtive Federation - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 96 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 1127 (26 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.96 OF 1997

Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. ....Applicant

Versus

M/s Distt. Cooperative Federation

Ltd., Bulandshahr. ....Respondent

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

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

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the income of the assessee from cold storage was exempt under the provisions of sec. 80 P (2) (e) of the I.T. Act, 1961?"

The present Reference relates to the Assessment Year 1986-87.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:

The assessee is a cooperative society deriving income from cold storage and other several business activities. The assessee claimed under section 80 P (2) (e) in respect of income from three cold storages of Bulandshahr, Jhagirabad and Sikandrabad. Sikandarabad Cold Storage was given to assessee's society by U.P. Cooperative processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd., Lucknow to run on trial basis. The claim of the assessee under section 80 P was denied by the A.O. on the basis of his order in the previous year. Though it was mentioned that the reference under section 256 (1) was also not filed against the order of the Tribunal. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O.  As against this, the assessee submitted written submissions in which it is submitted that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in ITA No.5365/del/83 for asstt. Year 1979-80 and the claim of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal following its own order in ITAS No.5365/del/83 and CO No.43/Del/84 for asstt. Year 1979-80 in assessee's own case allowed the assessee's contention.

We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri M. Manglik, learned counsel for the respondent assessee (hereinafter referred to as "Assessee").

We find that this Court in the ITR No.245 of 1991, which is inter party decided on 01.02.2005 has answer the similar question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e. In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Dt.26.04.2005

R./


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.