Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishi Udyog Evam Saurkusha Pradershini - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 32 of 1976
Judge
Reported in(1979)9CTR(All)176; [1981]128ITR214(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10(20)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentKrishi Udyog Evam Saurkusha Pradershini
Appellant AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Gulati, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - this finding was reached after a consideration of the rules in question and the resolutions of the district board as well as of the committee......tax. in the present case, the controversy was whether the district board was itself running the mela and exhibition in question and so entitled to the exemption. the tribunal has held that though the district board has constituted a committee to organize this mela and exhibition, it was in fact being organized by the district board itself. this finding was reached after a consideration of the rules in question and the resolutions of the district board as well as of the committee.2. we have heard learned counsel and, in our opinion, the finding that the mela and exhibition were in fact being run by the district board is on a question of fact and does not betray any erroneous approach in law.3. 'we, therefore, answer the question referred to us whether the assessee was entitled to.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. Under Section 10(20) of the I.T. Act, 1961, income of a local authority, from a trade or business carried on by it within its own jurisdictional area is exempt from tax. In the present case, the controversy was whether the District Board was itself running the mela and exhibition in question and so entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal has held that though the District Board has constituted a committee to organize this mela and exhibition, it was in fact being organized by the District Board itself. This finding was reached after a consideration of the rules in question and the resolutions of the District Board as well as of the committee.

2. We have heard learned counsel and, in our opinion, the finding that the mela and exhibition were in fact being run by the District Board is on a question of fact and does not betray any erroneous approach in law.

3. 'We, therefore, answer the question referred to us whether the assessee was entitled to execution under Section 10(20) of the Act in the afirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assesses will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //