AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the same. The impugned orders being bad in law are required to be quashed. 2. 1 The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the exemption claimed U/s._10(1) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 10,16,14,493.00 and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. The exemption as claimed by the appellant is to be allowed as claimed for. 2.2 In any case, the authorities below have erred in not following the binding directions of the Honorable High court and erred in denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 10(1) of the Act by the appellant. On proper ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below have erred in not following the binding directions of the honourable High court and erred in denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 10(1) of the Act by the appellant. On proper appreciation of facts and the judicial decision rendered by the hoourable High court, the appellant is eligible for substantial relief with respect to agricultural income and same is to be granted to the appellant. 2.3 In any case and without prejudice, the various observations made/conclusions drawn by the authorities below being totally contrary to available facts and the law applicable are to be ignored. 3.1 The learned Assessing Officer had erred in making disallowance U/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Tribunal for assessment year 2000-01. She submitted that except for the quantum of disallowance, facts in the present case are same and the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 10(1) was the subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal, which travelled till Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court at the behest of assessee. She placed reliance on the facts narrated by coordinate bench of this Tribunal by order dated 29/10/2018 in ITA No.1949/Bang/2018 for assessment year 2000-01. For the sake of convenience we are reproducing the facts narrated by this Tribunal as under: "At the outset, it is necessary to record the brief history of the present appeal which is as under: 1. Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivity on land taken on lease and contract farming considered agricultural income which was exempt under section 10 (1) of the Act" 5. Hon'ble High Court in ITA No. 75/2007 (being revenue's appeal) for assessment year 2001-02 has summed up the issue alleged in para 3-6 of its order at page 198 of paper book. Hon'ble court framed the question of law to be answered as under: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that income derived by the assessee from manufacturing of seeds and sale of the same would amount to agricultural income which would be exempt under section 10 (1) of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in not taking into consideration the fact that assessee could not have had agricultural la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards: "58. Therefore the view of the 1st appellate authority that hundred percent of the operations up to conversion of the foundation seed as agricultural activities conducted by the assessee company and therefore income deserves to be exempted from tax under section 10(1) of the act is erroneous. Similarly exemption given by the tribunal for 90% of the income is also erroneous. We opine that the tribunal was justified in treating 10% of the income as business income which involved in processing foundation seeds to certified seeds. In that view of the matter, we hold that the entire income amounts to business income of the assessee and assessing officer was justified i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., keeping in view the ratio of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (Supra) in assessee's own case 2.5 We note that Ground no.3 for assessment year 2011- 12 is consequential in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 3. Ground No. 3.1-3.2 for assessment year 2012-13: 3.1 The assessee raised issue in respect of disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii) of the Act. It is been submitted that for the year under consideration assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 9,20,744/-. Assessee did not make any suo moto disallowance in respect of the dividend earned during the year under consideration. The Ld.AO accordingly, disallowed 0.5% of the average value of investment in the hands of assessee. 3.2 Aggrieved by ....