THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. PUNJAB HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers

ITA/393/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094623201921 April 2022Author: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh. The dismissal was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel that the question of law involved in the present appeals was covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a prior Division Bench judgment of the same High Court. This judgment was in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 241 (P&H), decided on 28.08.2018. The High Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent and therefore disposed of the appeals in light of the Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. judgment. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeals were decided based on the conceded point.

What were the facts?

These two appeals, ITA Nos. 393 & 399 of 2019, were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the Revenue) against Punjab Hydro Power Private Limited (the assessee). The appeals challenged orders passed by an authority not specified in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the appeals were presented before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The amount in dispute is not stated. The core of the matter is a question of law that the Revenue conceded was covered against them by a prior Division Bench judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law involved in these appeals is covered against the appellant (Revenue) and in favour of the respondent (assessee) by virtue of the Division Bench judgment dated 28.08.2018 in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 241 (P&H). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the outcome suggests they relied on the Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, fairly stated that the question of law involved in these appeals would be covered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench judgment in Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. (supra). No other contentions were recorded for the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.04.2022

ITA-393-2019 (O&M) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Punjab Hydro Power Private Limited .... Respondent

ITA-399-2019 (O&M) The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Punjab Hydro Power Private Limited .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). ****

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. Income Tax Appeal Nos.393 & 399 of 2019 titled as “The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh vs. Punjab Hydro Power Private Limited”. Learned counsel at the very outset has fairly stated that the question of law involved in these two connected appeals would be covered against the appellant(s) and in favour of the assessee by virtue of a Division Bench judgment dated 28.08.2018 in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 241 (P&H). DINESH KUMAR 2022.04.25 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA Nos.393 & 399 of 2019 -2- In view of the prayer and stand taken on behalf of the appellant(s), the present appeals are dismissed in the light of Division Bench judgment dated 28.08.2018 passed in Vardhman Chemtech P. Ltd. (supra). (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE (PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE 21.04.2022 Dinesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2022.04.25 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →