Itta/251/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Agricultural Market Committee
High Court
27 Jun 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/251/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Agricultural Market Committee
Date of order
27 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/251/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I 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 ITTA Nos.421 of 2010 andbatch.
Decision: Following the decision in ITTA Nos.421 of 2010 and batch,dated 30.3.2011 this appeal is, accordingly, allowed without anyorder as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ 27.06.2011 Note:- Issue order copy in one week.
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.251 OF 2011
Dated:27.06.2011
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam
AND
… Appellant
Agricultural Market Committee, Yelamanchali
… Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
I.T.T.A.No.251 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 impugned order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Visakhapatnam Bench, took the view that Section 10(26AAB) of the Actis retrospective, and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
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 ITTA Nos.421 of 2010 andbatch. It was held therein that Section 10(26AAB) of the Act isprospective in operation. The decision therein – both the Counsel donot dispute – squarely covers the issue that is raised in this appeal.
Following the decision in ITTA Nos.421 of 2010 and batch,dated 30.3.2011 this appeal is, accordingly, allowed without anyorder as to costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
______________________________
27.06.2011
Note:- Issue order copy
in one week.
(B/o)
KH
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
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.