TRICHUR TECHNO PARK P. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 52/COCH/2021Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 December 2022AY 2014-152 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it is not necessary for a company to own agricultural land to derive income that qualifies for exemption under Section 10(1). Therefore, the income from rubber produce should not be treated as 'other sources'.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a technopark company, derived income from the sale of rubber produce grown on its land. The Assessing Officer treated this income as 'other sources' and disallowed related expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether income derived from the sale of rubber produce grown on a technopark company's land is taxable as income from 'other sources'. Whether expenditure related to such income is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 143(3),Section 57(iii)

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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Dr. Santhakumar K., CA
For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.11.2022Pronounced: 19.12.2022

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 04.03.2021, passed in case No. CIT(A), Thrissur/13046/2016-17, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole issue substantive question arises for our apt adjudication herein is that of treatment of a sum of Rs.4,62,057/- which is stated to have been derived from sale of rubber produce grown on its technopark land.

3.

Learned DR vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ findings that they had rightly declined business income plea. She further took us to the detailed assessment findings in the assessment order dated 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) 27.12.2016 disallowing corresponding expenditure claim of Rs.3,51,340/- as well thereby assessing the total amount herein above as income from “other” sources. Suffice to say, the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in principle but accepted the assessee’s expenditure claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act as wholly and exclusively incurred for the above residuary head of income.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing Revenue’s contentions and find that this tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in Inventaa Industries Pvt. Ltd. case (2018) 95 taxmann.com162 (Hyd)(SB), has already settled the issue by holding that it is nowhere necessary for a company to own agricultural land for deriving Section 10(1) exempt income per se. We make it clear that the said assessee had in fact derived income from sale of mushroom only. Faced with this situation we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →