C.I.T. BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, RAWLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/151/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026934201403 May 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the High Court's prior judgment rendered on 26.04.2016 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) and other connected appeals. In that earlier case, the High Court had upheld the ITAT's decision which allowed the claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in identical matters. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The specific reasoning for allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) in the cited case is not detailed here, but the ratio decidendi is that if a similar assessee has been granted exemption in identical circumstances, the present appeal should also be dismissed. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Revenue is against an order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer, who had rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla, and the Revenue is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla, is entitled to exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year(s) in question? The Revenue contended that the assessee was not eligible for the exemption. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue or the assessee before the High Court. However, it refers to a previous decision of the High Court in identical matters concerning Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar, where the ITAT's decision allowing the claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) was upheld. This implies that the core issue revolved around the eligibility for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) and the interpretation of the relevant provisions concerning charitable trusts or institutions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

:::: D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.151/14 (D) :::: Date of Order : 3rd May, 2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa with Mr. H.G.Chanda, for the appellant. BY THE COURT :-

1.

The requirement of production of certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3.

This appeal is directed against order dated 25.2.14 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue, questioning the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short “the Act”), stands dismissed.

4.

The controversy involved in the present appeal stands

2 covered by decision of this court rendered on 26.4.16 in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) & other connected appeals, whereby the decision of the ITAT in identical matters allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, has been upheld and accordingly, the appeals have been dismissed.

5.

In this view of the matter, this appeal is also dismissed in light of decision of this court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar's case (supra). (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA), J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Rp 48

More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →