HOME TEX 77, SEC 29 HUDA PANIPAT vs. CIT, KARNAL

ITA/478/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084589200904 December 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not sustainable as no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. This conclusion was based on the assessee's counsel fairly conceding that all the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal had already been decided against the assessee by the High Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 520, which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC). Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The specific findings on each of the four issues were not elaborated upon by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of based on the concession regarding the binding precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Home Tex, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order dated March 28, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-2003. The ITAT's order was challenged by the assessee. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal to the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal's order was sustainable as it was passed ex-parte, violating the principles of natural justice regarding the opportunity of being heard? 2. Whether Duty Drawback received is an amount derived and eligible for deduction under Section 80IB? 3. Whether the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme received is an amount derived and eligible for deduction under Section 80IB? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act based on the true and correct interpretation of Sections 80HHC, 80IA(9), and 80IB(13)? Contentions: The assessee raised these questions of law. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. However, the assessee's counsel conceded that all these substantial questions had already been decided against the assessee by the High Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 520, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC,Section 80IA(9),Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.478 of 2009 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Income Tax Appeal No.478 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 4.12.2009 Home Tex,77,Sector 29, HUDA, Panipat ---Appellant

Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal

---Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The assessee has filed the instant appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the ITAT”) in ITA No.950/Del/2007, in the case of assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-2003, raising the following substantial questions of law:- I. Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable being ex

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →