2003 (3) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....licant, Shri M.L. Garg, submitted before us that the assessee is a co-operative society at the apex level in the State of Haryana. The assessee owns god owns and one of the sources of income is rent from god owns. The assessee is being allowed exemption in respect of income from god owns under s. 80P(2)(e). Even for the assessment years under reference, such exemption was allowed by the AO. However, during the course of hearing of the appeals, learned CIT(A) felt that assessee was not entitled to deduction in respect of rental income from god owns. He observed that letting out of god owns and warehouses was incidental to the main business of the assessee. According to him, such god owns and warehouses belonging to the assessee were nothing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9) 237 ITR 587 (SC), the learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that income derived from letting out of godowns or warehouses alone qualifies for exemption under s. 10(29) and other income would not qualify for deduction under s. 10(29). He also drew our attention to the order of Government of India dt. 12th Nov., 1993, as per which the assessee was allowed storage charges for one month @ Rs. 1.05 per quintal. Thus, he submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction only in respect of income from letting out of godowns and warehouses, which as per Supreme Court judgment in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation & Anr. vs. CIT, is entitled to such deduction. He further submitted that learned CIT(A) has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... necessary for the running of Government. Therefore, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the request for stay of demand may not be acceded to. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that subsequent to filing of the stay applications, the Addl. CIT has rejected assessee's request for stay of demands vide his letter dt. 11th Feb., 2003. A copy of the said letter/order is also placed on our file. He further submitted that immediately after the said request was rejected by the Addl. CIT, the AO vide his letter dt. 20th Feb., 2003 has directed the assessee to make payment of the demands. Thus, he submitted that it is due to such pressure that assessee is requesting the Tribunal to grant stay of demands. 6. We hav....