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

ITA/72/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01050332200211 April 20162 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (appellant-revenue) against M/s Saraf Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year in question is 1994-95. The appeal challenges an order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that it did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs, citing CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part). The revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if any surviving issue existed.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court 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, no finding was given on the substantial questions of law regarding the distinction between manufacturing and repairing transformers, or the eligibility for deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no difference in making new transformers as well as repairing old transformers? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I to the assessee company under the given facts and circumstances? The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that it did not wish to press the appeal 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, 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. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side on the merits of the case.

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. 130(ASR)/2001, for the assessment year 1994-95, 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 →