Itta/408/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Agricultural Market Committee
High Court
17 Nov 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/408/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Agricultural Market Committee
Date of order
17 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/408/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Agricultural Market Committee, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The question whether the said provision is retrospectivein operation has been considered by a Division Bench of this Courtto which one of us (VVSR, J) is a member, in Commissioner of Income Tax v Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku[[1]].
Decision: Following the decision in Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku, this appeal is accordingly allowed.
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 SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.408 of 2011
Date:17.11.2011
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry
AND
… Appellant
Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta
… Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.408 of 2011
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench took the view that Section10(26AAB) of the Act is retrospective, and dismissed the appealfiled by the Revenue.
Section 10(26AAB) of the Act exempts income of AgriculturalMarket Committees (AMCs) from the levy of income tax under theAct. It was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from01.4.2009. The question whether the said provision is retrospectivein operation has been considered by a Division Bench of this Courtto which one of us (VVSR, J) is a member, in Commissioner of
Income Tax v Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku[[1]]. It washeld 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 Agricultural Market Committee,
Tanuku, this appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Theadvocate fee is Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
17.11.2011vs
[1](2011) 337 ITR 299 (AP)
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
_____________________
(SANJAY KUMAR, 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.