CIT LUDHIANA vs. SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS LTD.SA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/78/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038768199902 July 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed two questions of law. Regarding the first question, concerning the ITAT's decision to question an order under Section 154 by allegedly overlooking a Supreme Court precedent, the court noted that this issue was covered against the assessee by a Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76. For the second question, which pertained to whether deductions under Section 32A/32AB should be excluded when calculating deductions under Section 80HH, the court found that this was also covered against the assessee by a previous order of the High Court in the assessee's own case, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2009] 311 ITR 345. Consequently, both questions were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order dated August 30, 1996, for the assessment year 1986-87. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) is the applicant (revenue), and M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. is the respondent (assessee). The reference arises from an order under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking the court's opinion on two questions of law. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT passed an order which the revenue challenged through this reference.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in questioning the order under Section 154 of the I.T. Act by overlooking the Supreme Court decision in the case of Camby Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 113 I.T.R. 84, by which the controversy stood settled? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no deduction under Section 32A/32AB should be made from the profits while working out deduction under Section 80HH of the I.T. Act? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Relied on the Supreme Court decision in Camby Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT for the first issue. For the second issue, the revenue relied on the High Court's own prior decision in the assessee's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 154,Section 32A,Section 32AB,Section 80HH

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.78 of 1999 Date of decision: 2.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Applicant. Vs. M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., Sangrur. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Krishan Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.8.1996 in I.T.A. No.1224/Chandi/90 for the assessment year 1986-87:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in questioning the order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act by overlooking the controversy stood settled?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no deduction u/s 32A/32AB be made from the I.T.R. No.78 of1999 profits while working out deduction u/s 80 HH of the I.T. Act?”

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that as far as question No.1 is concerned, the same is covered against the assessee by Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tat v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 and question No.2 is also covered against the assessee by order of this Court in the case of the assessee itself in Commissioner of Income Tat v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2009] 311 ITR 345. 4. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

5.

The reference is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 02, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →