Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1075 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10(26AAB) - Income received by way of fee by assessee - agricultural income - expression “agricultural produce” would cover the subject products [i.e., fish, poultry and eggs] regulated by the respondent/assessee or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the respondent/assessee earned a fee. The facts, as disclosed, are that the wholesalers of the produce bring their products, which include fish, poultry and eggs, to the designated spots where they are cleaned, sorted and sold to the traders. It is on this account that the fee is earned by the respondent/assessee. The fee that the respondent/assessee obtains helps the purpose for which it is constituted i.e., regulating the marketing of agricultural produce.Since “agricultural produce” is not defined in the 1961 Act, the Tribunal, as noted above, has taken recourse to Section 2 of the 1998 Act. The respondent/assessee has been constituted under the Delhi Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act 1976 and was appointed as regulator under the 1998 Act to facilitate trading in fish, poultry and eggs. The definition of agricultural produce, as contained in Section 2(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, read with schedule, as extracted above, is wide, which includes all kinds of produce, including fish, poultry, and eggs. Therefore, even otherwise, the fee earned by the respondent/assessee, as held by the Tribunal, would constitute income derived from regulating agricultural produce. Thus, according to us, the conclusion reached via the impugned order by the Tribunal is unimpeachable and does not need any interdiction by this court. The appeal is dismissed.
|