COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST MELA RAM STREET BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/384/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110594201614 May 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal were covered by its previous decisions in The Tribune Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another and Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Improvement Trust, Moga [2017] 390 ITR 547. In these cited cases, similar issues had been decided against the Revenue and in favor of the Assessee. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or the detailed analysis of Section 2(15) by the High Court is not elaborated upon, as the appeal was disposed of based on prior judgments. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09 and concerns the assessee, Improvement Trust, Bathinda. The ITAT's order had set aside a previous order in favor of the assessee. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision on specific legal grounds. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by ignoring the scope of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when deciding the case. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in wrongly deciding the issues and setting aside the impugned order in favor of the assessee trust, thereby conflicting with its own previous judgments. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in failing to consider that its previous judgments, such as in PUDA vs. CIT and Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT, were followed by the Amritsar Bench in Jammu Development Authority vs. CIT, which was subsequently upheld by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court and the Supreme Court. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in its interpretation of Section 2(15) and had disregarded binding precedents. The Assessee did not present separate arguments as the parties were ad idem. The Revenue relied on its own previous judgments and the judgments in PUDA vs. CIT and Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT, which were upheld by higher courts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 2(15),Section 143(3),Section 12AA(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : May 14, 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh .............................................................................. Appellant Versus Improvement Trust, Bathinda ................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ... Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. K.L.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. ...

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming that the following questions of law arise out of order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'ITAT'), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 416 (Asr)/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- (i) Whether the ITAT has erred in law in ignoring the scope of proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, while deciding the cases. (ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in wrongly deciding the issues and wrongly setting aside the Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [ 2 ] Section 2 (15) of the Act w.r.t. “business, trade and commerce” has been interpreted, which judgment in Jammu Development Authority has been upheld firstly by Hon'ble J&K High Court in ITA No. 164 of 2012 vide its order dated 07.11.2013 and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal © No. 4990 of 2014 vide its order dated 21.07.2014. (iv) The department had already filed appeal before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh against the order u/s 143 (3) for the A.Y. 2009-10 as well as the order of 12AA(3) of Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the same case. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court in The Tribune Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another and Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Improvement Trust, Moga [2017] 390 ITR 547 where the similar issues have been decided against the Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [ 3 ] Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) 14.05.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable: Yes / No Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →