C I T vs. M/S VANAIK SPINNING MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/389/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073087200711 December 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeal was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd., (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 397. In that precedent, the Court had interpreted the relevant provisions of Section 80HHC and answered the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the same principle and precedent, the High Court answered the question in the instant appeal against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to uphold the Tribunal's order.

What were the facts?

The revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated March 23, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2002-03 and concerns the assessee, M/s Vanaik Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana. The core of the dispute revolves around the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, specifically whether Central Sales Tax and Sales Tax should be excluded from the total turnover.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Central Sales Tax and Sales Tax should be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961? The appellant-revenue contended that Central Sales Tax and Sales Tax should not be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of Section 80HHC deduction. The respondent-assessee argued that these taxes are not part of the trading receipts and therefore should be excluded. The Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 389 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.12.2007 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana …Appellant Versus M/s Vanaik Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue.

JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. This is revenue’s appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging order dated 23.3.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 705/CHANDI/2005, in respect of assessment year 2002-

03.

It is claimed that following substantial question of law would emerge for determination of this Court:- Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Central

I.T.A. No. 389 of 2007 Sales Tax and Sales Tax be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961? After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and perusing the record we find that the matter is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court has already dealt with the question of law raised in the instant appeal in detail in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd., (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 397. The Division Bench after interpreting relevant provisions of Section 80HHC of the Act and referring a number of judgments of various High Courts, has answered the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of above, following the same principle and precedent, the question of law raised in the instant appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee being squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vardhman Polytex Ltd. (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) December 11, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →