9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Eligibility for relief under section 80P(2)(e) for income earned from activities carried on during the relevant assessment years. 3. Determination of income derived from letting of godowns versus income from services rendered. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The primary issue was whether the provisions of section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act were applicable to the assessee, a co-operative society, for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, and 1974-75. The assessee claimed exemption for income earned through commissions under two agreements: one for the distribution of fertilizers and the other for the procurement of paddy/rice. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed it, applying the ratio of the decision in CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1973] 92 ITR 371, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Eligibility for Relief Under Section 80P(2)(e) for Income Earned from Activities The court examined whether the income earned by the assessee from the activities under the agreements qualified for relief under section 80P(2)(e). This section allows deductions for income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The court noted that the Madras High Court in the South Arcot case had given a broad interpretation to the term "letting," including the mere use of godowns for storage purposes. Issue 3: Determination of Income Derived from Letting of Godowns Versus Income from Services Rendered The court analyzed the nature of the agreements to determine whether the income was derived from letting godowns or from services rendered. - Fertilizer Agreement: The court found that the essential nature of the fertilizer agreement was similar to the South Arcot case. The assessee was to hold stocks, store goods in godowns, maintain accounts, and sell the goods as per government directions, earning a commission for these activities. The court concluded that the entire income of commission received under this agreement was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(e). - Paddy Agreement: For the paddy agreement, the court noted that the assessee was appointed as a sub-agent to purchase, store, and mill paddy/rice, earning a commission with a detailed break-up of charges. The court found that not all income could be attributed to the letting of godowns, as part of it was for milling and other services. The court acknowledged the need to split the income into two categories: (a) pertaining to the use of godowns, and (b) pertaining to milling. The court directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the exact quantum of deduction, applying the ratio of the South Arcot decision to each item. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the full exemption for the income of commission received under the fertilizer agreement. However, for the paddy agreement, only a part of the income was eligible for exemption, and the exact quantum was to be determined by the Tribunal. The court directed the Tribunal to decide the actual deduction in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the income components. No order as to costs was made.
|
