THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/255/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01018459200312 December 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised in the appeal had already been decided by the same Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs. M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, ITA No.293 of 2005, decided on 22.5.2006. In that judgment, the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the High Court held that the proposed question of law in the present appeal could not be considered a substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed based on the precedent established in the Vardhman Polytex Ltd. case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 2.6.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A', in ITA No.9/Chandi/2002. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1998-99 and concerns the calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The dispute revolves around whether sales tax, excise duty, etc., should be included in the "total turnover" for the purpose of this deduction, in light of Explanation (ba) below sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sales tax, excise duty, etc., should not be included in the "total turnover" in view of Explanation (ba) below sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, implies the assessee argued for the exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from total turnover for Section 80HHC calculation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was not in accordance with the law and that sales tax and excise duty should be included in the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Revenue relied on the substantial question of law proposed in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A. No.255 of 2003 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 255 of 2003 Date of decision:12.12.2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus M/S Punjab Tractors Ltd., Phase-IV, SAS Nagar(Mohali) ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the Revenue. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing the following substantial question of law arising out of the order dated 2.6.2003 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh passed in ITA No.9/Chandi/2002 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was right in law in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the I.T.Act, 1961, sales tax, excise duty etc. should not be included in the “total turnover” in view of Explanation (ba) below sub-section (4B) of Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that the issue has been gone into by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs. M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, ITA No.293 of 2005 decided on 22.5.2006 and the question has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

I.T.A. No.255 of 2003 -2- *** In view of the judgment of this Court referred to above, the question proposed cannot be held to be a substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 12, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge

I.T.A. No.255 of 2003 -3- ***

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →