THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. M/S BMW INDIA PVT. LTD.

ITA/11/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01118945201804 April 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI,MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court decided on 25.04.2016 in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited. The Court noted that the questions of law in both appeals are the same. Consequently, based on this agreement and the precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning is that since the issues are identical and a binding precedent exists, there is no need for a separate adjudication. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the appellant/revenue) against BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent/assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action, the nature of which is not detailed, but it is being heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The procedural history is that the revenue has filed this appeal. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The core of the matter is that the revenue's appeal is considered to be covered by a previous judgment of a Division Bench of the same High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court decided on 25.04.2016 in ITA No. 5 of 2016 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The entire appeal hinges on the applicability of the precedent set in the Carrier Air Conditioning case. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the present appeal is covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench. No other arguments were presented by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-11-2018 (O&M) Date of decision:- 04.04.2018

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ...Appellant Versus

BMW India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

It is agreed that this appeal is covered by the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court decided on 25.04.2016 (wrongly typed as 25.04.2006) in ITA No. 5 of 2016 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited. The questions of law are the same in both the appeals. 2.

In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 04.04.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.04.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →