9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption for income derived from letting out godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or marketing of commodities. Detailed Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The main issue was whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(29) for income derived from letting out godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The court noted that the Central Warehousing Corporation had been granted exemption by the Board of Direct Taxes for such income, leading to the reference to the court for a legal determination. The court began the analysis by quoting section 10(29) of the Act, which provides for exemptions for income falling within certain clauses. It specifically exempts income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities for authorities constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities. The court then delved into the comparison between the functions of the Central Warehousing Corporation and State Warehousing Corporations, highlighting that they are essentially the same, with minor differences in additional functions. The judgment referenced previous decisions by different High Courts, including U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. ITO, CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Addl. CIT v. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, and CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation. These judgments concluded that State Warehousing Corporations are considered "authorities" constituted under the law for marketing commodities, making the income derived from letting out godowns or warehouses exempt under section 10(29). The court adopted the reasoning from these judgments and found no reason to differ from them. Furthermore, the court addressed attempts by the Department's counsel to distinguish these judgments by referencing Calcutta decisions. It clarified that the Calcutta State Transport Corporation case was not directly related to section 10(29) and did not involve income from warehousing activities. The court also distinguished the Singhal Brothers (P.) Ltd. case, emphasizing that the assessee in the present case is a statutory corporation with specific functions, making it an "authority" under the Income-tax Act. In conclusion, the court answered the question referred to them affirmatively in favor of the assessee, stating that the Central Warehousing Corporation qualifies as an "authority" under section 10(29) and is entitled to the exemption for income derived from letting out godowns or warehouses. The judgment concluded by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
|
