<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (2) TMI 8 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5400</link>
    <description>SC held that the assessee-co-operative apex marketing society was not entitled to exemption under s. 81(i)(c) of the IT Act in respect of income from procurement and marketing of paddy and other agricultural produce. Interpreting &quot;agricultural produce of its members&quot; purposively, the Court held it means produce actually grown by the members, not produce merely traded or handled by them. The provision was intended to benefit base-level co-operative societies of agriculturist-producers, not apex or trader societies. As the assessee was marketing produce not grown by its primary society members, it fell outside the exemption. The HC&#039;s denial of exemption was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 22:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 8 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5400</link>
      <description>SC held that the assessee-co-operative apex marketing society was not entitled to exemption under s. 81(i)(c) of the IT Act in respect of income from procurement and marketing of paddy and other agricultural produce. Interpreting &quot;agricultural produce of its members&quot; purposively, the Court held it means produce actually grown by the members, not produce merely traded or handled by them. The provision was intended to benefit base-level co-operative societies of agriculturist-producers, not apex or trader societies. As the assessee was marketing produce not grown by its primary society members, it fell outside the exemption. The HC&#039;s denial of exemption was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>