9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax (Appeals) that the entire income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The respondent-assessee is a corporation established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Warehousing Corporation Act. It claimed that it being a corporation constituted under the law for the marketing of the commodities, its entire income derived from whatever source is exempt under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act'). This plea of the assessee respondent did not find favour with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the income derived only from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities is exempt from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act in respect of the entire income of the corporation and agreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following its own earlier orders in other cases. However, the Judicial Member of the Tribunal, after striking a discordant note by referring to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in M. P. Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 158 concurred with the opinion of the Accountant Member of the Tribunal for maintaining consistency with the earlier orders. In the aforesaid circumstances on the applications being made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, the question quoted above is referred to this court for its opinion. Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under "10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erived therefrom', meaning thereby obviously for marketing of commodities by letting out of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the same. If the letting out of godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose, the question of exemption would not arise." In Orissa State Warehousing Corporation's case [1999] 237 ITR 589 (SC), the assessee derived income from warehousing charges, administrative overheads being surplus of recovery over cost on procurement activities on behalf of the FCI/State Government fumigation service charges, interest and miscellaneous income. The court, after referring to its earlier decision in Union of India v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation [1991] 187 ITR 54, affirming the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on the decision of this reference. It has been alternatively contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, as was contended before the Tribunal, while considering the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that if the entire expenses of the individual income of the assessee are being taken into account, it will be taxable surplus in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, the question referred to this court was otherwise academic and the question referred to this court need not be answered. For the purpose of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
