Blue Mountain v. ITO

14 ITD 254Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1985#16703 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(1)Section 10(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 115JBSection 1961Section 35ADSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)agricultural incomecompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing Blue Mountain v. ITO

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1024/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 35A

…s. 20,01,68,000/- earned from growing of mushroom as agricultural income and claimed the same as exempt in its return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as non- agricultural income relying on the decision of Blue Mountain Food Products Ltd. 14 ITD 254 and Chandigarh Bench decision in Chandra Mohan and made addition of Rs. 20,01,68,000/- by holding the mushroom cultivation income to be non-agricultural income. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who held the same to be agricultural activity. 6. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. D…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7844/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263Section 35A

…of Rs.20,01,68,000/- earned from growing of mushroom as agricultural income and claimed the same as exempt in its return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as non- agricultural income relying on the decision of Blue Mountain Food Products Ltd. 14 ITD 254 and Chandigarh Bench decision in Chandra Mohan and made addition of Rs.20,01,68,000/- by holding the mushroom cultivation income to be non-agricultural income. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who held the same to be agricultural activity. 6. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. DR r…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Sonu Monu Agro Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A(1)

…mushroom is an agricultural activity or not is of no significance and does not help the assessee in claiming exemption u/s. 10(1) of the Act unless it is proved by the assessee. 11. The Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of Blue Mountain Food Products Ltd.. [14 ITD 254] held that "the activity of growing mushrooms under controlled conditions has been accepted as a manufacturing activity. It followed, therefore, that the shed in which mushrooms are grown has to be treated as a factory building and depreciation has to be allowed a twice the normal rate". 12. For manufacturing/producing of mushrooms, one building i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…ion 80JJA. With the passage of time the views change. We are of the opinion that the conclusion on this issue cannot be guided by this Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune), is on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and hence not relevant. The decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rachna Dogra (supra) is also no…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 969/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…ion 80JJA. With the passage of time the views change. We are of the opinion that the conclusion on this issue cannot be guided by this Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune), is on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and hence not relevant. The decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rachna Dogra (supra) is also no…

Blue Mountain v. ITO (14 ITD 254) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax