M/S Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
13 Jul 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
13 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
1994-95
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in terms of theabove mentioned judgment.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M/s Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
ITA No. 161 of 2001
Date of Decision: 13.7.2010
....Appellant.
...Respondent.
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Gorav Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondent.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1.This appeal has been preferred by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.112/CHANDI/97 relating to the assessment year 1994-95 proposing thefollowing substantial questions of law:-
i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 arelegally sustainable?case the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 arelegally sustainable?
ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the order disallowing the deduction/exemption under section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) islegally sustainable, the same being based oncase the order disallowing the deduction/exemption under section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) islegally sustainable, the same being based on
mere presumptions and surmises and meredifference of opinion which cannot form thebasis of adjudication?
iii)
Whether at the time of marketing of sugar, thesame could be treated to retain the characterof agricultural produce grown by members ofthe Society or that it represent a commercialcommodity no longer having the character ofagricultural produce, is a question of law to bedecided by this Hon'ble Court?”
2.Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered in favour of the assessee by the Full Bench judgmentof this Court in The Budhewal Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v.Commissioner of Income-Tax, ITA No. 507 of 2006 decided on22.5.2009.
3.In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in terms of theabove mentioned judgment.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
July 13, 2010gbs
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE
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.