CIT v. Agriculture Market Committee

337 ITR 299High Court2011#9204 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 421

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 12AASection 143(3)Section 145Section 263Section 36(1)(iv)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 11 exemptionsection 80j(6a)section 12a(b)section 10(22)approved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(v)section 139(4a)section 10(20)section 12a(a)section 12a(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Agriculture Market Committee

URBAN WHOLESALE MARKET AUTHORITY,KOZHIKODE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(3),KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 737/COCH/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2008-09 Urban Wholesale Market Authority .......... Appellant Vengeri, Kozhikode 673010 [Pan: Aaalu0257D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wsd-1(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Somy Cherian Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkatta [Cit(A)] Dated 12.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Market Committee Constituted As Per Go(Ms) No. 117/99Ad Dated 17.04.1999 By The Government Of Kerala. It Is Formed With The Object Of Facilitating Marketing Of Agricultural Produce. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2008-09 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 On 28.03.2015. In 2 Urban Wholesale Market Authority Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 22.04.2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 10(26Aab) Of The Act. However, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Had Disallowed Exemption On The Ground That The Appellant Is Not A Legal Entity Under The Provisions Of Any Act Passed By The State Legislative Assembly. Further, Provisions Of Section 10(26Aab) Are Applicable Only From Ay 2009-10. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Who Vide The Impugned Order Confirmed The Action Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Somy CherianFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 148

…and submits that provisions of section 10(26AAB) are prospective in nature and applicable only from AY 2009-10. In this regard she placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee [2012] 337 ITR 299. 3 Urban Wholesale Market Authority 7. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. the issue that arises for my consideration is whether the income of the Market Committee is eligible for exemption u/s. 10(26AAB) of the Act for AY 2008-09. Provisions of section 10(26AAB) were inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 0…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 60. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agriculture Market Committee (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP) relied on by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we find the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the provisions of section 10(26AAB) of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2009 and which exempts income of agricultural market committees from the levy of income tax unde…

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed and the relevant orders of the Tribunal and of the CIT

ITTA/557/2011HC Telangana07 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10Section 260

…appeals are allowed as above at the stage of admission, after hearing the respective counsel for the respective parties. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 7th August, 2012 _______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J GRR [1] 337 ITR 299.…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed and the relevant orders of the Tribunal and of the CIT

ITTA/551/2011HC Telangana07 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 10Section 260

…appeals are allowed as above at the stage of admission, after hearing the respective counsel for the respective parties. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 7th August, 2012 _______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J GRR [1] 337 ITR 299.…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, for the conclusions on the points urged

ITTA/500/2011HC Telangana12 Apr 2012

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Section 10Section 260

…SHANKAR I.T.T.A.No.500 of 2011 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by VE, J.) 12th April, 2012. (Ak) [1] [2011] 337 ITR 299 (AP)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/482/2011HC Telangana08 Feb 2012
Section 10

…to be given effect to w.e.f. 1.4.2009?” 3. Reference answered accordingly. ______________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 08th February, 2012. Ak/Bnr [1] (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/483/2011HC Telangana08 Feb 2012
Section 10

…et Committee, Narela Vs. CIT (305 ITR 1)?” 3. Reference answered accordingly. ______________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 08th February, 2012. Ak/Bnr [1] (2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP)…