At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL
For the Appellant: R.R. Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: --------.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned standing counsel for the respondent. The two questions of law involved in the matter are:
"(i) Whether for the purpose of eligibility for exemption of tax under section 4A in the case of diversification the assessee was required to satisfy requirement pertaining to land with regard to its ownership and tenancy for seven years contemplated in section 4A, Explanation (1) or it is governed by section 4A, Explanation (5)?
(ii) Whether liquid pesticides and powder pesticides manufactured by the assessee-revisionist are one and the same thing as h
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eld by Revenue or different?
2. So far as question No. (i) is concerned, this court finds that requirement relating to land, building, etc., are contemplated in Explanation (1) in the context of a new unit but in respect of units which are already existing but have undergone expansion, diversification or modernization, the matter is governed by Explanation (5), which reads as under:
"(5) 'Unit which has undertaken