THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/200/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117393201709 May 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was no longer res integra. It referred to its own previous judgment in ITA No.244 of 2016, decided on 30.01.2017, which had adjudicated the same issue as raised in the present appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The reasoning is that the issue has already been decided by the High Court in a similar case involving the same parties. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a higher court in a prior judgment, subsequent appeals raising the same issue should be decided in accordance with that precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The appeal challenges the ITAT's deletion of an addition made on account of the apportionment of expenses against exempted income. The assessee is the State Bank of Patiala. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing the present appeal after the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in deleting the addition made on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted Income? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was decided based on a previous judgment of the High Court. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the matter was no longer res integra, citing a previous judgment of the High Court in ITA No.244 of 2016 titled 'the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala' decided on 30.01.2017, which had adjudicated the same issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.200 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ----Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala ----Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue. ***** Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh, claiming the following substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in deleting the addition made on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted Income?” 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the matter is no longer res integra. This Court in ITA No.244 of 2016 titled as 'the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala' decided on 30.01.2017, has adjudicated the same issue as raised in the present appeal. 3. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed in ITA No.244 of 2016. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) 09.05.2017 Judge Atul Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Atul Kumar Tripathi 2017.05.16 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 →