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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/154/2014HC RajasthanRJHC01055059201426 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 decision was based on the principle that the present appeal was covered by the High Court's own judgment delivered 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 identical matters, the High Court had upheld the decision of the ITAT, which had allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeals in those cases were dismissed. Applying the same reasoning and precedent, the present appeal filed by the Revenue against Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana, was also dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated February 25, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against 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, Gharsana. The judgment notes that the present appeal is covered by a decision of the High Court 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.

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) not specified in the judgment. The Revenue's contention, as inferred from the challenge to the ITAT's order, is that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) was wrongly allowed. The Revenue likely argued that the conditions for claiming such exemption were not met by the assessee. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by the Revenue or the assessee before the High Court. However, it states that the controversy is covered by a prior decision of the High Court in identical matters concerning Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar, where the ITAT's decision allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) was upheld.

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.154/14) 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 →