R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court : ra No. 20/all/1989 whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80p (2) (iv) in respect of gypsum section and seed section ? ra No. 30/all/1989 whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80p (2) (iv) in respect of fertilizer and seed section ? ( 2 ) THE reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : the respondent-assessee is an apex co-operative society of Uttar Pradesh. Its members are the district level co-operative societies and the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The members of the respondent-society do not carry any agricultural activities by themselves. The respondent-society sold gypsum, seeds and fertilizers and other items to its member-society. It claimed exemption under Section 80p (2) (a) (iv) of the Act. The claim was not accepted by the assessing authority on the ground that these items have been supplied by the respondent to its member-society who in turn distributed them to the cultivators irrespective of the fact that such cultivators are members of the society or not. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred separate appeals before the cit (A) who had accepted the claim of the respondent-assessee, which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Rohit nandan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. ( 5 ) WE find that the controversy raised herein is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. Etc. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Rohit nandan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. ( 5 ) WE find that the controversy raised herein is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. CIT 1998 IV AD (SC )479 , AIR1998 SC 2303 , [1998 ]231 ITR814 (SC ), jt1998 (4 )SC 145 , 1998 (1 )KLT933 (SC ), 1998 (3 )SCALE578 , (1998 )5 SCC48 , [1998 ]3 scr443 wherein the apex Court has held that Section 80p of the Act has been introduced with a view to encouraging and promoting the growth of the cooperative sector in the economic life of the country and in pursuance of the declared policy of the Government. The correct way of reading the different heads of exemption enumerated in the section would be to treat each as a separate and distinct head of exemption. Whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of an income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax what has to be seen is whether the income falls within any of the several heads of exemption. If it falls within any one head of exemption, it would be free from tax notwithstanding that the conditions of another head of exemption are not satisfied and such income is not free from tax under that head of exemption. The apex Court had further held that for the purposes of Section 80p (2) (a) (iii) of the Act, so long as agricultural produce handled by the assessee belonged to its members it was entitled to exemption in respect of the profits derived from the marketing of the same. Whether the members came by the produce because of their own agricultural activities or whether they acquired it by purchasing it from cultivators was of no consequence for the purpose of determining whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption. The only condition required for qualifying the assessees income for exemption was that the assessees business must be that of marketing, the marketing must be of agricultural produce and that agricultural produce must have belonged to the members of the assessee-society before they came up for marketing by it, whether on its own account or on account of the members themselves. Section 80p does not in effect limit the scope of the exemption to agricultural produce raised by members alone but includes agricultural produce raised by others but belonging to co-operative societies. The contrast in the said provision is with reference to the marketing of agricultural produce of the members of the society or that purchased from non-members. The apex Court has approved the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Tamil nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Mad) 83 : (1983) 144 ITR 74 (Mad), wherein it has been held that the expression co-operative society occurring in Section 80p (1) covers any co-operative society whether it is a primary society or an apex society and, hence, the reference to members in Clause (iv) of Section 80p (2) can be taken to refer to the members of a primary society or members of an apex society, as the case may be. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that after the apex Court had delivered the judgment in the case of kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra), the Parliament had amended the provisions of Section 80p (2) (a) (iii) of the Act by substituting the words "the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members" by the IT (Second Amendment) Act, 1998, w. e. f. 1st april, 1968. The validity of the amendment has been upheld by the apex Court in the case of national Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of india (2003) 181 CTR (SC) 1 : (2003) 260 ITR 548 (SC ). However, no such amendment has been made in Clause (iv) of Section 80p (2) (a) of the Act which reads as follows : (2) The sums referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely : (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in- (i) to (iii) xxxxxxx (iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members. Thus, the interpretation placed by the apex Court in the case of Kerala State Cooperative marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable for interpreting the provision of clause (iv ). Thus, the interpretation placed by the apex Court in the case of Kerala State Cooperative marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable for interpreting the provision of clause (iv ). ( 7 ) APPLYING the principles laid down by the apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the apex society supplied/sold gypsum, seeds and fertilizers to its members. These goods were intended for agricultural purposes and, therefore, benefit of Section 80p (2) (a) (iv) of the Act was available. ( 8 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the tribunal. ( 9 ) WE accordingly answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. . .