THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. PUNJAB WIRELESS SYSTEM LTD MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
ITR/386/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032457199501 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment dated November 1, 2006, referred to its decision rendered on the same day in ITR No. 244 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s. Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali). Based on that prior judgment, the High Court answered both questions referred to it against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasoning for this decision is not elaborated in the provided text, but it implies that the ITAT's earlier findings were upheld. The operative direction was to dispose of the references accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (revenue) has filed these Income Tax References (ITR Nos. 386 to 388 of 1995) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated February 7, 1994. The ITAT's order pertains to ITA Nos. 366, 367, and 455/Chandi/89 concerning assessment years 1980-81, 1982-83, and 1986-87. The dispute involves the assessee, M/s. Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali, and the revenue's challenge to the ITAT's decision regarding investment allowance. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is considering the questions of law referred by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the manufacturing of wireless sets does not fall under Item No. 22 (read with its Explanation) of the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing investment allowance under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee company engaged in the manufacturing of wireless sets? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT had previously ruled in favour of the assessee on these points. Revenue: The revenue, represented by Mr. SK Garg, Advocate, has challenged the ITAT's findings, leading to these references. The specific arguments of the revenue are not detailed in the provided text, but they are implicitly against the ITAT's decision allowing investment allowance and classifying the manufacturing activity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR Nos.386 to 388 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR Nos 386 to 388 of 1995 Date of decision:1,11,2006 The Commissioner of Income tax, Patiala ....Petitioner versus M/s. Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. SK Garg, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 7.2.1994 in ITA Nos.366,367 and 455/Chandi/89, in respect of assessment years 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1986- 87:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that manufacturing of wireless sets does not fall in Item No.22 (read with its Explanation) of the eleventh Schedule of the Income tax Act, 1961?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income tax Act, 1961 to the assessee company engaged in the manufacturing of wireless sets?” In view of our judgment rendered today in ITR No.244 of 1995, (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s. Punjab Wireless

ITR Nos.386 to 388 of 1995 2 system Limited, Mohali), the questions referred are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 1, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →