C.I.T JALANDHAR vs. M/S MODERN FARM SERVICES BATHINDA

ITR/27/1993HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021922199319 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that it had already answered similar questions of law in I.T.R. No. 12 of 1988, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. M/s Modern Farm Services, Bathinda, for the assessment year 1978-79, decided on 18.10.2006. Consequently, the High Court held that the questions referred in the present references for assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83 should be answered in the same manner as they were answered in the earlier case. The judgment does not detail the specific reasoning or ratio from the prior decision, only that the questions are answered consistently. The operative direction is that the references are disposed of accordingly, implying the High Court's opinion aligns with the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeals.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar (Revenue) filed two Income Tax References (ITR Nos. 27 & 28 of 1993) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. These references arose from orders of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) concerning assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's second appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of 'post warranty service' for both assessment years. The Tribunal referred questions of law to the High Court, citing a similar earlier order for assessment year 1978-79.

What were the issues?

1. For assessment year 1980-81: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 27,540/- made on account of post warranty service? 2. For assessment year 1982-83: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 56,700/- made on account of deposit in Post Warranty Services? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment, beyond the fact that they are challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of their appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R. No.27 & 28 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R.No. 27 and 28 of 1993 Date of decision: 19.10.2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax Jalandhar ..Applicant through

Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate v. M/s Modern Farm Services, Bathinda ..Respondent through Nemo CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh Bindal

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Rajesh Bindal, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') has referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act'), the following questions for the opinion of this Court arising out of ITA Nos. 451 and 452/CHANDI/86, pertaining to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83: “For the assessment year 1980-81 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the second appeal filed by the Revenue against the

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 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →