CIT CHD II vs. M/S PUNJAN STATE CO-OP MILK PROD FEDERATION LTD

ITA/567/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093514201015 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 29.1.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The appeals, ITA Nos. 567, 651, and 755 of 2010, involved common questions of law. The assessee is M/s Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. The core dispute pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be covered by the Tribunal's order. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's decision allowing a deduction.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed. The reasoning provided is that the Revenue's counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by a previous order of the same High Court dated 10.9.2007 in ITA No. 584 of 2006, titled Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. M/s Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Chandigarh. Therefore, following the precedent set by its own prior decision, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The specific finding on the eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is implicitly affirmed by the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income earned by the assessee on the working capital advanced to another co-operative society or Milk Union is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961? (Question of law). The Revenue's contention is that the interest income is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side, but it notes that the Revenue's counsel does not dispute that the matter is covered by a previous order of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.567 of 2010 & other connected cases being ITA Nos.651 and 755 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-II -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of ITA Nos.567, 651 and 755 of 2010 as all the appeals involve common question of law. I.T.A. No.567 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 29.1.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.420/Chandi/ 2007claiming following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income earned by the assessee on the working capital advanced to another co-operative society or Milk Union is eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961?”

I.T.A. No.567 of 2010 Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the matter

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 →