COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CHD. vs. TAKASHI SAKAMOTO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/455/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075179200612 January 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court referred to its own prior decision in ITA No. 458 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai), decided on November 23, 2006. In that case, the High Court had held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order concerning the same issue for the same assessment year. Therefore, following the precedent set in the Kunio Ikai case, the present appeal filed by the revenue was also dismissed. The specific reasoning of the ITAT on the entitlement to the benefit under Section 10(6)(viia) and the 'technician' status, as well as the ratio decidendi for that finding, were not elaborated upon by the High Court as it found no substantial question of law. No specific operative directions were issued by the High Court, other than dismissing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench-B. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1993-94 and concerns five different assessees, including Mr. Takashi Sakamoto. The core of the dispute revolves around the eligibility of the assessee for benefits under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning salary and perquisites received. The High Court noted that a similar order by the ITAT in another case, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai, had already been upheld by the same court, which found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the stated facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit claimed by him under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the salary, including perquisites received by him? 2. Whether, on the stated facts, the assessee would be considered as a 'technician' for the purpose of Section 10(6)(viia) of the Act? Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in law by allowing the benefit under Section 10(6)(viia) to the assessee and that the assessee did not qualify as a 'technician' for the purpose of the said section. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the ITAT's order, which is under challenge, held in favor of the assessee regarding the benefit under Section 10(6)(viia) and the status of being a 'technician'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

10(6)(viia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** Date of Decision:12.01.2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .....Petitioner Vs. Mr. Takashi Sakamoto .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the revenue. **** Rajesh Bindal, J. The revenue has approached this Court by filing the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B (for short, `the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.490/Chandi/2003 dated 6.3.2006 in respect of assessment year 1993-94:- “1. Whether on the stated facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit claimed by him under section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the salary, including perquisites received by him?”

2.

Whether, on the stated facts, the assessee would be considered as a `technician' for the purpose of section 10 (6)(viia) of the Act?” The order passed by the Tribunal was common for five different assessees. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the same order of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court in I.T.A. No.458 of 2006 filed by the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai vide order dated 23.11.2006, wherein it has been held that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.

-2-

For the reasons stated in earlier order passed by this Court in Kunio Ikai's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE January 12, 2007

( M.M.KUMAR ) renu JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →