Itta/186/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Agricultural Market Committee
High Court
21 Apr 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/186/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Agricultural Market Committee
Date of order
21 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/186/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Agricultural Market Committee, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Thequestion whether the said provision is retrospective in operation hasbeen considered by this Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry v Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku[[1]].
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
I.T.T.A.No.186 of 2011
Date:21.04.2011
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam
AND
… Appellant
Agricultural Market Committee, Yelamanchili
… Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
I.T.T.A.No.186 of 2011
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act). By the impugned order the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench took the view that Section 10(26AAB)of the Act is retrospective, and dismissed the appeal filed by theRevenue.
Section 10(26AAB) of the Act exempts income of AgriculturalMarket Committees (AMCs) from the levy of income tax under the Act. Itwas inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 01.4.2009. Thequestion whether the said provision is retrospective in operation hasbeen considered by this Division Bench in Commissioner of Income
Tax, Rajahmundry v Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku[[1]]. Itwas held therein that Section 10(26AAB) of the Act is prospective inoperation. The decision therein – both the Counsel do not dispute –squarely covers the issue that is raised in this appeal.
Following the decision in AMC Tanuku (supra) this appeal isaccordingly allowed without any order as to costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
21.04.2011vs
[1]ITTA Nos.421 of 2010 and batch, dated 30.03.2011
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.