C.I.T PATIALA vs. M/S METALWAYS (P) LTD.CHD.

ITR/2/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021569199028 February 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of a separate order passed on the same day in related matters (I.T.R. Nos.336 & 337 of 1996), has answered the referred question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The specific reasoning or the findings of the Tribunal that led to this conclusion are not detailed in this judgment. However, the operative direction is that the reference is disposed of accordingly, implying that the Tribunal's decision, which favoured the assessee on the issue of setting aside the assessment order for further adjudication, is upheld. The core of the dispute revolved around the eligibility for deduction under Section 80J and the applicability of Explanation 2 to sub-section (4) thereof, with the revenue arguing that the time limit for the deduction had expired.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (Revenue) has filed a reference application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning the assessment year 1979-80. The appeal arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No.87 of 1983 dated 31.8.1984. The Tribunal had set aside an assessment order to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudication on the applicability of Explanation 2 of sub-section (4) of Section 80J. The Revenue contends that the assessee, M/s Metalways (P) Ltd., Chandigarh, was not entitled to any deduction under Section 80J for the assessment year 1979-80 as the period of admissibility laid down by sub-section (2) of Section 80J had expired.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment order to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudicating on the applicability of Explanation 2 of sub-section (4) of section 80J, when the assessee was in the first place not entitled to deduction under section 80J for assessment year 1979-80, in view of the fact that the period of admissibility laid down by sub-section (2) of section 80J had expired? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is represented by Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80J for the assessment year 1979-80 because the period of admissibility as per sub-section (2) of Section 80J had expired. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment order to adjudicate on Explanation 2 of sub-section (4) of Section 80J.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

I.T.R. No.2 of 1990 Date of Decision:28.02.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Metalways (P) Ltd., Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue. Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the assessee. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. Following question of law arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.87 of 1983 dated 31.8.1984, in respect of assessment year 1979-80 has been referred for opinion of this Court:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside assessment order to the file of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for adjudicating on the applicability of Explanation 2 of sub- section (4) of section 80J,when the assessee was in the first place not entitled to deduction under section 80J for assessment year 1979-80, view of the fact that the period of admissibility laid down by sub-section (2) of

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 80J

All 76 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →