2015 (7) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent-Assessee did carry on activity of cultivation of sugarcane and the income derived therefrom, is agricultural income. This finding of fact is neither shown to be perverse and/or arbitrary. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal as filed against findings of fact. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1582 of 2013, ITA No. 1704 of 2013 - - - Dated:- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)'s decision that the amount of ₹ 32,69,820/- for the assessment year 2002-03 and ₹ 35,13,376/- for the assessment year 2003-04 respectively should be treated as agricultural income of the assessee firm under Section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The Respondent-Assessee carries on business as agriculturalist at Kolhapur and filed its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... use of the land. Thus, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Respondent-Assessee. 6. On further appeal by the Appellant Revenue, the Tribunal on examination of the record, concluded that there is no denial that the sugarcane is being cultivated by the Respondent-Assessee on the land owned by the MSFC. The Tribunal further records that the relationship between the MSFC and the Respondent-Assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X