THE COMMISSIONER F INCOME-TAX JALANDHAR vs. M/S.JALANDHAR MILL STORES,JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/128/2000HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036302200018 November 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the matter was covered against the Revenue by a previous order of the same Court dated September 27, 2007, in ITA No. 141 of 1996, titled CIT v. Suresh Sehgal Prop. M/s Sehgal Gas Supply Company. Therefore, based on this precedent, the appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning behind the ITAT's decision on depreciation and the provisos to Section 32(1) was not elaborated upon by the High Court, as it relied on its prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The ITAT's order, dated February 21, 2000, pertained to ITA No. 486(ASR)/1994 for the assessment year 1992-93. The appeal was filed proposing to raise substantial questions of law concerning the allowance of depreciation on gas cylinders and the applicability of provisos to Section 32(1) of the Act. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation on gas cylinders, ignoring that trading in gas was not the business of the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, thereby affirming the action of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee’s case is covered by the 1st Proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such, the 4th Proviso thereto is not applicable in respect of a case falling under the 1st proviso thereto? (Question of law) Contentions: Revenue: Argued that depreciation on gas cylinders should not have been allowed as trading in gas was not the assessee's business for the relevant assessment year. Also argued on the applicability of provisos to Section 32(1). Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 32(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.128 of 2000 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Jalandhar Mill Stores. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar dated 21.2.2000 in I.T.A. No.486(ASR)/1994 for the assessment year 1992-93 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation on gas cylinders ignoring that trading in gas was not the business of the assessee for the asstt. year 1992-93?” 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue whereby affirming the action

I.T.A. No.128 of 2000 of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee’s case is covered by Ist Proviso to sec.32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and as such, 4th Proviso thereto is not applicable in respect of the case falling under the Ist proviso thereto?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 27.9.2007 in I.T.A. No.141 of 1996 CIT v. Suresh Sehgal Prop.M/s Sehgal Gas Supply Company. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 2

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 →