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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/161/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01026895201426 April 2016Author: SANGEET LODHA,DEEPAK MAHESHWARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the controversy in the present appeal was covered by its earlier decision rendered on the same day 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 those earlier appeals, the High Court had upheld the decision of the ITAT which allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the appeals in those cases were dismissed. Therefore, by applying the same reasoning and precedent, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is also dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT or the CIT(A) regarding the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) are not detailed in this judgment, as the High Court's decision is based on the principle of parity with its prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed this appeal 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, which was challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The present appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, and the ITAT's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana, is entitled to claim exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year(s) in question. The Revenue's contention, as inferred from the appeal challenging the deletion of additions and the rejection of exemption, is that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) is not valid. The Revenue likely argued that the conditions for claiming such exemption were not met. The assessee's contention, as reflected in the CIT(A)'s order and the ITAT's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, is that the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) is indeed admissible. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific arguments or precedents relied upon by either side, beyond stating that the matter is covered by a previous decision of the High Court.

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, GHARSANA (D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.161/14) Dated:- 26th April, 2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Mr.H.G.Chanda for Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. BY THE COURT :- (PER HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.)

1.

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.

2.

The controversy involved in the present appeal stands covered by decision of this court rendered today in D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) & other connected

2 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.

3.

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). (DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/

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 →