CIT (C), LUDHIANA vs. M/S J.C.AULUCK INVESTMENT PVT.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/71/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038053199812 November 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while hearing ITR No. 71 of 1998, has decided the referred question of law against the revenue. The Court found that the issue had already been decided in favour of the revenue in a previous case, ITR No. 287 of 1995, titled "Commissioner of Income tax, (Central), Ludhiana Versus M/s Bhagyoday Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana", decided on 21.05.2008. Consequently, the High Court answered the question of law in terms consistent with the ruling in the aforementioned judgment. The operative direction is that the reference is disposed of accordingly, implying the ITAT's order treating the assessee as an industrial company and applying the lower tax rate is upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) has filed Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 71 of 1998 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The assessee is M/s J.C.Auluck Investment (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. The core of the dispute pertains to the assessment year(s) which are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to treat the assessee company as an 'industrial company' and apply the lower tax rate applicable to such companies. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT has made a reference of a question of law to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee company be treated as 'industrial company' and that the tax be charged at the low rate applicable to the industrial company? (Question of law) The revenue's contention is that the ITAT erred in classifying the assessee as an 'industrial company' and applying the concessional tax rate. The revenue is implicitly arguing against this classification and the resultant tax treatment. The judgment does not explicitly record the specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the revenue. The assessee's contention, as inferred from the High Court's decision, is that the ITAT's finding that the company is an 'industrial company' and thus eligible for the lower tax rate is correct. The judgment does not record specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 12.11.2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Ludhiana

..... Appellant

VERSUS M/s J.C.Auluck Investment (P) Ltd., Ludhiana ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: None for the appellant. Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the respondent.

******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) By way of this order, we shall dispose of ITR No.71 of 1998 and ITA No.44 of 2002. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has referred the following question of law: - “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee company be treated as 'industrial company' and that the tax be charged at low rate applicable to the industrial company?”

We have heard counsel for the respondent and are satisfied that the question of law has already been answered against the revenue [ 2 ] in ITR No.287 of 1995 “Commissioner of Income tax, (Central), Ludhiana Versus M/s Bhagyoday Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana”, decided on 21.05.2008. In this view of the matter, the question referred to is answered in the terms referred to in the abovesaid judgment. Disposed of accordingly.

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 12.11.2013 [ DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ] shamsher JUDGE

Singh Shemsher 2011.01.01 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →