M/S TEEKNITS vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/283/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051428200413 October 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its decision dated 13.10.2010, did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law. Instead, the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) fairly stated that identical appeals, being I.T.A. Nos. 284 and 285 of 2004, filed by M/s Teeknits v. CIT, had already been dismissed by the same Court on 07.10.2010. Following this submission and the precedent set by the dismissal of the identical appeals, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. Therefore, no specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law, nor was any reasoning provided for deciding them. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Teeknits, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2000-01. The ITAT's order was in ITA No.37/CHANDI/2001. The High Court was considering substantial questions of law proposed by the assessee. The revenue was represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The procedural history indicates that the High Court had previously dismissed identical appeals filed by the same assessee (ITA Nos. 284 and 285 of 2004) on 07.10.2010.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in disposing of the appeal summarily by stating that both parties admitted the applicability of the decision in IPCA LABORATORY LTD. VS DCIT, 266 ITR 521 (SC) to the facts of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal mis-read and misinterpreted the law and failed to analyze the facts of the present case in comparison to the facts in 266 ITR 521 (SC). 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the net loss under Section 80HHC(3)(a), (b), & (c) should be adjusted against export incentive read with the proviso to the said sub-section for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC(1). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal committed an error by disposing of the appeal summarily and by misinterpreting the law and facts in relation to the cited Supreme Court decision. The assessee also questioned the Tribunal's holding regarding the adjustment of net loss against export incentive for Section 80HHC deduction. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 13.10.2010 M/s Teeknits. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 27.10.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.37/CHANDI/2001 for the assessment year 2000-01 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i of the case, the Tribunal has mis-read and mis- interpreted the provision of law vis-à-vis without going into the details bringing out the facts of this case and that of 266 ITR 521 (SC). iiii That whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the net loss u/s 80 HHC(3) a, b & c is to be adjusted against the export incentive read with the proviso to the said sub-section for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC(1).”

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that identical appeal being I.T.A. Nos.284 and 285 of 2004 M/s Teeknits v. CIT has been dismissed by this Court on 7.10.2010. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 13, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →