DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INVENTAA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 580/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2021AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that income from mushroom production is agricultural income and thus exempt. This decision was based on the principle of judicial consistency with a prior Special Bench ruling on the same issue for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision that income from mushroom production was agricultural and exempt. The assessee's case for previous assessment years had already been decided by a Special Bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether income derived from mushroom production is to be considered agricultural income and exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 95 Taxmann.com 162
    95 Taxmann.com 162 · 2018
    5 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2017-18 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad’s order dated 18-08-2020 passed in case No.13520/2019-20/CIT(A)-2, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts holding the assessee’s income of Rs.4,70,85,644/- derived from mushroom production as agricultural and therefore exempt u/s.10(1) of the Act, both the learned lower representatives fairly admitted that this tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in taxpayer’s case itself [2018] 95 taxmann.com 162 (Hyderabad - Trib.) (SB) (for AYs.2008-09 onwards) has decided the same against the department. We thus adopt judicial consistency and uphold the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge for this reason alone in absence of any distinction on facts.

3.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2021

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →