By impugned decision dated 2.6.06, Delhi High Court following its earlier judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Azadpur v. Commissioner of Income tax I.T.A. No.749/2006 dismissed the appellants appeal.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before CIT A who upheld the view taken by the A.O. and declined the exemption claimed by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant moved the High Court by way of Income Tax Appeal No.819/2006 under Section 260A of the 1961 Act.
Appellant Committee is established under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1998 1998 Act, for short .
The A.O. rejected the appellants claim for exemption relying upon Circular No.8/2002 dated 27.8.02 issued by CBDT.
For the assessment year 2003 04, the appellant Committee claimed exemption from payment of tax under income earned by it on the ground that it was a local authority within the meaning of Section 10 20 of the said 1961 Act.
Hence this civil appeal.
The view taken was that the amended provisions of Section 10 20 of the 1961 Act were number attracted to Agricultural Produce Marketing Societies or Agricultural Market Boards even when they may be local authorities under Central or State Legislations.
This is apart from performing other functions and duties such as superintendence, direction and companytrol of markets for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce.
The provisions of the said 1998 Act enjoin upon the appellant to provide the facilities for marketing of agricultural produce in Narela, Delhi.
H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.
In this batch of civil appeals a short question which arises for determination is whether Agricultural Market Committee AMC, for short is a local authority under the Explanation to Section 10 20 of the Income tax Act, 1961 1961 Act, for short .
For the sake of companyvenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No of 2008 arising out of L.P. C No.6757 of 2007 filed by AMC, Narela, Delhi.
A further appeal by the appellant, before the Tribunal, also failed.
