THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. GURDASPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST GURDASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/116/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117299201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the Division Bench judgments of the same High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another, and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The reasoning is that these prior judgments are binding on the current bench. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, the appeal should be decided accordingly. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Amritsar (the appellant/revenue) has filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Gurdaspur Improvement Trust. The specific assessment year(s) and the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in this High Court judgment. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged the ITAT's decision. The High Court notes that the revenue has challenged similar judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal is disposed of based on prior High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee based on previous High Court judgments (mixed question of law and fact, concerning the applicability of precedents). The revenue's contention is that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another, and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The revenue also informs the court that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-116-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Amritsar

...Appellant Versus

Gurdaspur Improvement Trust ...Respondent

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

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

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

It is agreed that this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). 2.

We are informed that the revenue has challenged the judgement before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 25.01.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.02.09 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →