https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209349 Amounts collected by Mandi Samitis as mandi shulk and development cess, and statutorily remitted in part to the State Agricultural Produce Market Board, were treated as application of receipts rather than income available for the Samitis' own use. The statutory scheme required remittance of 50% of mandi shulk and the full development cess, so the transfer was compulsory and not a voluntary diversion. As the Board had an overriding title over the remitted sums and the amounts were ultimately used for market-yard development, management improvement, and better service to agricultural producers, the disallowance was deleted and the remitted amounts were allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209349 Amounts collected by Mandi Samitis as mandi shulk and development cess, and statutorily remitted in part to the State Agricultural Produce Market Board, were treated as application of receipts rather than income available for the Samitis' own use. The statutory scheme required remittance of 50% of mandi shulk and the full development cess, so the transfer was compulsory and not a voluntary diversion. As the Board had an overriding title over the remitted sums and the amounts were ultimately used for market-yard development, management improvement, and better service to agricultural producers, the disallowance was deleted and the remitted amounts were allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209349