CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

341 ITR 342High Court2012#3628 most cited

What is CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Agricultural income exemption is denied when no lease of land is created, as leasing might be prohibited under relevant land reform acts.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. · agricultural income · exemption · lease of land · Karnataka Land Reforms Act · 341 ITR 342

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 83

Sections most often in play

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(1A)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 43BSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 79section 2(1)section 10(1)section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 80lsection 17(2)section 10(35)captive service providersection 260aagricultural income

Judgments citing CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 9205/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

…he ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Monsanto India Ltd. in ITA No.633 of 2010 (Bom.). The Ld. AR distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 341 ITR 342 (Karn.) relied by the AO stating that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court denied the exemption of the agricultural income on the ground that no lease of the land was created in terms of the agreement entered by M/s Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and the farmers as no leasing was permitted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The…

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

ITA 1575/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92C

…ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble\nBombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Monsanto India Ltd. in\nITA No.633 of 2010 (Bom.). The Ld. AR distinguished the\ndecision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs\nNamdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 341 ITR 342 (Karn.) relied by the AO\nstating that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Karnataka High\nCourt denied the exemption of the agricultural income on the\nground that no lease of the land was created in terms of the\nagreement entered by M/s Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and the\nfarmers as no leasing was permitted under the Karnataka Land\nReforms Act. T…

M/S. GREENS FARM TECH PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1835/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Greens Farm Tech Pvt. Ltd., No.325/1, 14th Main, 5th Cross, The Income Tax RMV Extension, Officer, Sadashsivnagar, Vs. Ward - 3(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 080. Bengaluru. PAN – AACCH 2096 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ahmed Khan, CA Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT Date of hearing : 24.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order pas…

LOKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-45(5), DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

…he ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Monsanto India Ltd. in ITA No.633 of 2010 (Bom.). The Ld. AR distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 341 ITR 342 (Karn.) relied by the AO stating that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court denied the exemption of the agricultural income on the ground that no lease of the land was created in terms of the agreement entered by M/s Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and the farmers as no leasing was permitted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in denying the claim of exemption by relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Namdhari Seeds Private Limited (341 ITR 342). D) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the facts available on record which the Appellant craves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to perverse finding that Appellant is not involve…

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2124/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in denying the claim of exemption by relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Namdhari Seeds Private Limited (341 ITR 342). D) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the facts available on record which the Appellant craves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to perverse finding that Appellant is not involve…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3763/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…. c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in denying the claim of exemption by relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Namdhari Seeds Private Limited (341 ITR 342). D) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the facts available on record which the Appellant craves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to perverse finding that Appellant is not involve…

CHAROEN POKPHAND SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, HAL III Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. PAN: AACCC3259N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA : Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2103/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM ITA No. 2102 & 2103/PUN/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asstt. CIT, Circle 1, Aurangabad Appellant Vs. M/s. R.J. Biotech Ltd., Siddarth Arcade Opp. Holiday Camp, Station Road, Aurangabad – 413 005 PAN: AADCR1924L Respondent Appellant by : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Respondents by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Date of Hearing : 24-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-06-2022 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. : These two appeals by the Revenue arise against a common order dated 23-6-2…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2102/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM ITA No. 2102 & 2103/PUN/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asstt. CIT, Circle 1, Aurangabad Appellant Vs. M/s. R.J. Biotech Ltd., Siddarth Arcade Opp. Holiday Camp, Station Road, Aurangabad – 413 005 PAN: AADCR1924L Respondent Appellant by : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Respondents by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Date of Hearing : 24-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-06-2022 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. : These two appeals by the Revenue arise against a common order dated 23-6-2…

M/S. CHAROEN POKPHAND SEEDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 311/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, HAL III Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. PAN: AACCC3259N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the…

NAMDHARI SEEDS,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 591/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOIN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 573/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 572/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOIN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S. NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S. NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 493/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S. NAMDHARI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (341 ITR 342) — Cited in 33 Judgments | BharatTax