TALBRO FORGINGS vs. CIT JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095451201127 May 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both substantial questions of law were covered against the assessee by its order dated 20.5.2011 in ITA No. 121 of 2011, titled Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The reasoning for this decision is based on the precedent set in the cited case, implying that the High Court had already ruled on similar issues regarding the interpretation of deduction sections and the levy of interest under Section 234B. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Talbro Forgings, filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeals challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, dated 25.9.2009. The Tribunal's order was received by the assessee on 7.10.2009. The appeals raised two substantial questions of law concerning the restriction of deductions under Section 80HHC read with Sections 80IA(9) and 80IB(13), and the mandatory levy of interest under Section 234B on disputed income. The assessee's counsel conceded that both questions were covered against the assessee by a prior decision of the High Court in Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80HHC read with sections 80IA(9) and 80IB(13), the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? 2. Whether interest under section 234B is mandatory in nature and its levy is permissible on income the taxability of which is under dispute and which could not be anticipated prior in time? Assessee's contentions: For question 1, the assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the specified sections. For question 2, the assessee argued that interest under Section 234B should not be levied on disputed income that could not be anticipated. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue. However, the assessee's counsel conceded that both questions were covered against the assessee by a prior High Court decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 80IA,Section 80IB,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.5.2011 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011, as it is stated that questions involved in both the appeals are same. The appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2003-04, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 73/Asr/2009 and ITA No. 72/Asr/2009 dated 25.9.2009 received on 7.10.2009, raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80HHC r.w. 80IA (9) r.w. 80IB (13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? (b) Whether interest u/s 234B is mandatory in nature and levy of the said is permissible on the income the taxability of which is under dispute and which could not be anticipated prior in time?

(2)

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that both the questions are covered against the assessee by order dated 20.5.2011 passed by this court in ITA No. 121 of 2011 Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Judge

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →