COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BATHINDA vs. M/S SARAF ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD.

ITA/78/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01005522200211 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE SATPAL,THE TAXING OFFICER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (appellant-revenue) against an order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 1996-97 and was in relation to M/s Saraf Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue's counsel, in view of CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if something survived. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the liberty sought and clarifying that the dismissal was not an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings on the questions of whether there was a difference between making new transformers and repairing old ones, and whether deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I were allowable, were not adjudicated on merits by the High Court.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no difference in making new transformers and repairing old transformers? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction under Section 80-HH and Section 80-I to the assessee company under the given facts and circumstances? Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the present 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 in case something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80-HH,Section 80-I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda .......Appellant Versus M/s Saraf Electricals Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. C.S. Singh Advocate for Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for for the appellant.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate 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 23.10.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 131(ASR)/2001, for the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substantial question of law: (i)Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no difference in making the new transformers as well as repairing of old transformers? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction u/s 80-HH and 80-I to the assessee c

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80-I

All 128 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →