THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question of law raised in the present appeal is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the assessee/respondent by the Court's own judgment dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016, which involved the same parties. Consequently, the question of law was decided against the appellant. The Court acknowledged the appellant's submission that the prior judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court, but this did not alter the High Court's decision based on its own precedent. The operative direction was to decide the question of law against the appellant.
What were the facts?
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the appellant/department) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Division Bench, Chandigarh. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011. The respondent is the State Bank of Patiala. The High Court noted that the question of law raised in the present appeal was already decided against the appellant and in favour of the assessee by a previous judgment of the same Court, dated 27.02.2017, in the case of the same parties (ITA No. 270 of 2016). The appellant's counsel informed the Court that this prior judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the question of law raised in the appeal is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the assessee/respondent by the judgment of this Court dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee did not explicitly present arguments in this specific proceeding. However, the Court's decision was based on a prior judgment where the issue was decided in their favour. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel, Mr. Z.S. Klar, admitted that the question of law raised in this appeal is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the assessee/respondent by the judgment of the High Court dated 27.02.2017 in ITA No. 270 of 2016. He further stated that the appellant has challenged this prior judgment before the Supreme Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CM No. 11695-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 193 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 11695-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 193 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the respondent. *** S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J.(Oral) CM No.11695-CII of 2017 Application is allowed and documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 193 of 2017 This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh in respect of assessment year 2010- 2011. It is admitted that the question of law raised in this appeal is covered against the appellant/department and in favour of the Kanchan 2017.05.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CM No. 11695-CII of 2017 in/and ITA No. 193 of 2017 (O&M) 2 assessee/respondent by the judgment of this Court, dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure R-2) in the case of these very parties in ITA No. 270 of 2016. The question of law is, therefore, decided against the appellant. Mr. Klar, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) 22.05.2017 JUDGE kanchan Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Kanchan 2017.05.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
