TALBRO FORGINGS vs. CIT JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/138/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095452201127 May 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee. The court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee fairly stated that both questions of law were covered against the assessee by a previous order of the same court dated 20.5.2011 in the case of Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. Therefore, the court found no reason to deviate from its earlier decision. The appeals were disposed of based on this precedent, without delving into the merits of the specific arguments presented by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were dismissed based on a binding precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Talbro Forgings, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeals pertain to the assessment year 2003-04. The ITAT's order, dated 25.9.2009, was received by the assessee on 7.10.2009. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Tribunal's decision on specific questions of law. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the assessee filing appeals against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 80HHC read with Section 80IA(9) and Section 80IB(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of deductions. 2. Whether interest under Section 234B is mandatory in nature and its levy is permissible on income whose taxability is under dispute and could not be anticipated prior in time. Assessee's contentions: For question 1, the assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the specified sections. For question 2, the assessee contended that interest under Section 234B should not be levied on income whose taxability is disputed and could not have been anticipated. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 80IA,Section 80IB,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 137 and 138 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.5.2011 Talbro Forgings

....Appellant vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab) ...Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011, as it is stated that questions involved in both the appeals are same. The appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2003-04, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 73/Asr/2009 and ITA No. 72/Asr/2009 dated 25.9.2009 received on 7.10.2009, raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80HHC r.w. 80IA (9) r.w. 80IB (13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? (b) Whether interest u/s 234B is mandatory in nature and levy of the said is permissible on the income the taxability of which is under dispute and which could not be anticipated prior in time?

ITA No. 137 and 138 of 2011 (2) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that both the questions are covered against the assessee by order dated 20.5.2011 passed by this court in ITA No. 121 of 2011 Vishal Tools & Forgings Private Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab). In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of ITA No. 138 of 2011. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.5.2011 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) vs Judge

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →