C I T vs. SANDEEP PODDAR PROP.

ITA/126/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080090200829 March 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH,MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 5.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench (B). The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2001-02 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the assessee, Sh. Sandeep Poddar. The core of the dispute involved whether the assessee was carrying on business at Parwanoo, specifically at Shed No. 90, Sector 1, and whether the publication of books constituted a manufacturing activity eligible for deductions under Section 80-I/80-IB. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs and in light of CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The Court 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 issues raised by the Revenue were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was carrying on business of assembly of computers and publication of books at Parwanoo without reliable evidence, ignoring material on record? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in concluding that the assessee was carrying on business at Shed No. 90, Sector 1, Parwanoo, based on certificates with different addresses, none of which matched the specified shed? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in allowing deductions under Section 80-I/80-IB by treating the publication of books as a manufacturing activity, despite the assessee not being a publisher and getting printing done elsewhere? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80-I,Section 80-IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .......Appellant Versus Sh. Sandeep Poddar Prop. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. 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 5.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No.234/Chandi/2007, for the assessment year 2001-02, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that the assessee was carrying its business of assembly of computer and publication of books at Parwanoo in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence by ignoring the material and evidence on record? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances o

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 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →