THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-III LDH. vs. M/S VIJAY ;KIRAN HOTELS (P) LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue's counsel, citing CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, stated they did not wish to press the appeal. The court granted the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's decision regarding the allowability of the expenditure.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1998-99 and challenges the ITAT's decision to allow an expenditure of ₹8,11,022. The assessee is M/s Vijay Kiran Hotels (P) Ltd. The appeal was filed in 2006. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that expenditure of ₹8,11,022 was allowable without appreciating the facts of the case? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act concerning allowability of expenditure). Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded as none appeared for the respondent. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of CBDT circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, the revenue did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Vijay Kiran Hotels (P) Ltd., ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 32/Chandi/2004, for the assessment year 1998-99, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that expenditure of ` 8,11,022 was allowable without appreciating the facts of the case? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
