COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR vs. MARKET COMI\MITTE, KALANWALI

ITA/30/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095632201107 April 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order, dated May 26, 2010, pertained to ITA No. 405/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. The dispute involved an expenditure of Rs. 79,47,035/- claimed by the assessee, Market Committee, Kalanwali, as a contribution to the HSAM Board under a statutory obligation arising from Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the allowability of this expenditure.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) fairly stated that the matter was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same Court dated July 5, 2010, in ITA No. 151 of 2010 in CIT v. Market Committee, Narwana. Consequently, based on this precedent, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the specific issues raised. The judgment did not provide specific reasoning on the two questions of law and fact presented, nor did it address the arguments made by either side beyond the concession by the Revenue's counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 79,47,035/- contributed to the HSAM Board under statutory obligation is allowable, without appreciating that the assessee produced no evidence to prove actual incurrence of such expenditure? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether such a contribution can be treated to fall within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act? (Question of law, concerning Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The expenditure was not allowable as the assessee failed to produce evidence of its actual incurrence. Furthermore, the contribution did not fall within the definition of application of income for charitable purposes under Section 2(15) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 27,Section 2(15),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 7.4.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Kalanwali. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.5.2010 in ITA No.405/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.79,47,035/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall with

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 →