Gujarat High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs The Agricultural Produce Market ... on 22 April, 2015
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, S.H.Vora
O/TAXAP/802/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 802 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I....Appellant(s)
Versus
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 22/04/2015
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/802/2007 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-D, Ahmedabad dated 04.10.2006 passed in ITA No.1824/Ahd/2006 for A.Y.2001- 2002, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in law in holiding that the assessee was eligible for registration u/s.12A(a), without appreciating that it was assessed as local authority prior to the amendment in section 10(20) and 2(31), w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and its income was rendered chargeable to tax by restricting the definition of local authority and expanding the definition of 'person' only for denying the exemption u/s.10(20) and not for making such local authorities as eligible for exemption under the general provisions of section 11?"
2. Today, when the present tax appeal is taken up for final hearing, Shri Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot - II V/s. Khetiwadi Utpadan Bazar Samiti rendered in Tax Appeal No.948 of 2007 and it is submitted that on the identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has answered the similar/same question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
2.1. Shri Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/802/2007 JUDGMENT appellant is neither in a position to dispute the same nor in a position to show any contrary decision to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khetiwadi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (supra) rendered in Tax Appeal No.948 of 2007.
3. In view of the above concluded question by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khetiwadi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (supra) rendered in Tax Appeal No.948 of 2007 and for the reasons stated in the said judgment and order, we answer the question of law raised in the present tax appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the present tax appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) Hitesh Page 3 of 3