9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT DR. ANITA SUMANTH., J. This Tax Case (Appeal) has been filed by the assessee/appellant challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') for assessment year (AY) 2004-05. The substantial questions of law admitted for resolution are as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959 (in short 'Act') are different commodities or whether they are one and the same for the purpose of determining taxability of the profits from sale of jaggery. 3. The Tribunal has decided the issue adverse to the assessee holding that profits from sale of jaggery will be taxable, as such activity has no nexus with agricultural operations. Other orders passed by the Tribunal on the ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round has been taken, either before the first and second appellate authorities, pursuing the stand that the commodity sold was sugarcane and not jaggery. The assessee has only been harping on the distinction between 'gur' and 'jaggery', contending that the two are different commodities. 7. The specific point raised before us, that the sales effected are of sugarcane and not jagger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax ((1977) 106 TTR 804)], this Court has come to the conclusion that the essential characteristic of sugarcane in its original form, stands converted after processing, into jagerry and both the commodities are different and distinct from one another. 10. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
