SAABRI FREIGHT CARRIER PVT.LTD. vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-1,UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/104/2011HC RajasthanRJHC01013377201010 July 20172 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the disallowance made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified. The High Court reasoned that a previous Division Bench of the same court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harish Chand Ahuja had held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2010, was retrospective from April 1, 2005, and was in continuation of an earlier amendment. This precedent directly applied to the present case. The court further noted that this view was substantiated by a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Piu Ghosh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, Question No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellant assessee. Consequently, Question No. 2 was rendered academic and did not require an answer. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Saabri Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated. The core of the dispute revolves around a disallowance made by the ITAT. The High Court refers to a previous Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harish Chand Ahuja, which dealt with an amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Finance Act, 2010, and its retrospective effect from April 1, 2005. The High Court also notes a supporting judgment from the Calcutta High Court in Piu Ghosh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in light of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2010, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2005? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the disallowance is not justified, relying on the High Court's own precedent in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harish Chand Ahuja, which held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, was in continuation of an earlier amendment and retrospective from April 1, 2005. The assessee also relies on the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Piu Ghosh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 104 / 2011 Saabri Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Kishanpole, Udaipur ----Appellant Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Udaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari, with Mr. Bhagirath Patel For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order 10/07/2017 No.203/2013 decided on 26.11.2014) held that amendment to Appeal No.191/2009 decided on 12.07.2016).

(2 of 2) [ITA-104/2011]

In light of the finding arrived with regard to question No.1, the question No.2 remains only an academic question, therefore, that is not required to be answered.

The appeal is allowed, accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J. Pramod

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →