Case LawHigh Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10, Mumba...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10, Mumbai v. M/S. Monsanto India Limited

High Court 11 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10, Mumbai v. M/S. Monsanto India Limited
Date of order
11 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008, 1993-1994, 2004-2005
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10, Mumbai v. M/S. Monsanto India Limited, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.Following question is presented for our consideration:- "Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances of thecase, was the Tribunal correct in treating its commercial incomeof the sale of hybrid seeds, as agricultural income exemptunder Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3.

Decision: In that view of the matter, Question No.1 is notentertained." 4.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Mumbai..Appellant Versus M/s. Monsanto India Limited..Respondent ................... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/by PDS Legalfor the RespondentMr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/by PDS Legalfor the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : MARCH 11, 2019. P.C.: 1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). 2.Following question is presented for our consideration:- "Whether in law and on the facts and circumstances of thecase, was the Tribunal correct in treating its commercial incomeof the sale of hybrid seeds, as agricultural income exemptunder Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. In case of this very assessee, this question came up for consideration in Income Tax Appeal No. 1868 of 2016. This question was rejected making following observations:- "2. The Respondent – Assessee is a limited company. The issuesrelate to the assessment year 2007-2008. The company is engagedin manufacture and sale of hybrid seeds for agriculture. In relation tothe income arising out of such sale of seeds, the company claimsexemption under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, 'the Act'). The Revenue contends that the activity of theAssessee company cannot be categorized as agricultural operation.The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the exemption claimedby the Assessee. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment, held infavour of the Assessee upon which the Revenue has filed this Appealraising the first question noted above. 3.This issue has come before this Court on several occasions,concerning the same Assessee. For the Assessment Year 1993-1994to the Assessment Year 2004-2005, group of Income Tax Appealsbeing Income Tax Appeal No.633 of 2010 and connected Appeals,were rejected by this Court by common order dated 5[th] August, 2011.Once again, same issue was raised by the Revenue in Income TaxAppeal No.1618 of 2016. The said appeal was dismissed on 23[rd]January, 2019. In that view of the matter, Question No.1 is notentertained." 4.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan