COMM. OF IT. JALANDHAR vs. M/S DOABA CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/845/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093821201019 May 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was covered against the revenue by its own judgment in The Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Limited v. CIT, 225 CTR 261. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. The reasoning was based on the established precedent set by the High Court in a similar case involving a cooperative sugar mill. The court did not elaborate on the specific findings of the ITAT or provide a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, as the appeals were disposed of on the basis of the prior ruling. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals, meaning the ITAT's order in favor of the assessee was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar I, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1997-98 and involves M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Nawanshahr, as the respondent. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision concerning the eligibility of the assessee for deductions under the Act. Two appeals, ITA Nos. 845 and 846 of 2010, were filed by the revenue, involving common questions of law. The High Court noted that the matter was covered by a previous judgment of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in diverging from the earlier view of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (2001) 253 ITR 659 (P&H), as also held in the case of Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Limited v. CIT 225 CTR 261 (P&H)? (Question of law) 2. Whether a cooperative society engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of sugar from sugarcane can be considered to be engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members within the meaning of Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT's decision was incorrect and sought to challenge it on the substantial questions of law framed. The revenue relied on the principles laid down in the case of Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Limited v. CIT, 225 CTR 261 (P&H) to support its arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.845 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.845 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.5.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar I, Jalandhar ... Appellant Versus M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Nawanshahr ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr.Standing counsel for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.845 and 846 of 2010 as both the appeals involve common question. ITA No.845 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.502(ASR)/2000 for the assessment year 1997-98, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in expressing the plain divergence from the earlier view held by the Divisional bench of the jurisdictional High Court in Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, (2001) 253 ITR 659 1

ITA No.845 of 2010 (P&H) as held in the case of the Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Limited v. CIT 225 CTR 261 (P&H)? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of sugar out of sugarcane can be said to be engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members within the meaning of section 80-P (2) (a) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court in The Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Limited v. CIT, 225 CTR 261. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 19, 2011

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’

Judge 2

ITA No.845 of 2010 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →