M/S KARNAL COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. KARNAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/136/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084211200912 November 2009Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Court's decision was based on the development that the legal issue concerning the applicability of Section 80P to the marketing of sugar by members of a cooperative society had already been decided in favour of the assessee by a Full Bench of the same Court in Budhewal Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 351. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench. The operative direction was to set aside the Tribunal's order and remand the case for fresh adjudication. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on December 22, 2009.

What were the facts?

The appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was filed by M/s Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (the appellant/assessee) against the Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Spl. Range, Karnal (the respondent/revenue). The appeal was preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around the applicability of Section 80P of the Act to the marketing of sugar by members of the Cooperative Society. The High Court noted that a similar legal issue had been decided by a Full Bench of the same Court in the case of Budhewal Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 351.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the marketing of sugar by members of the Cooperative Society? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee relied on the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Budhewal Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 351, which had decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue. However, the appeal was filed against an order of the Tribunal, implying the revenue had likely contested the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 136 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 136 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 12, 2009 M/s Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Karnal ...Appellant Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Spl. Range, Karnal ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), raising question of applicability of Section 80P of the Act to the marketing of sugar by members of the Cooperative Society. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that legal issue has since been decided in favour of the assessee by Full Bench of this Court in Budhewal Coop. Sugar Mills Limited v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 351. 3. In view of this development, impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh order

ITA No. 136 of 2009 2 in accordance with law. 5. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on December 22, 2009. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 12, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →