THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHD vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST FAZILKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/37/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117580201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the Revenue has challenged this precedent before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. However, in light of the binding precedent of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appeal was disposed of in terms of that judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited Division Bench judgment were not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle is that the present case is factually and legally similar to the precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order concerning M/s Improvement Trust, Fazilka. The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the provided text. The appeal challenges a decision in favour of the assessee. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has challenged a similar judgment before the Supreme Court, where leave has been granted. The present appeal is being disposed of based on a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court, to which the Chief Justice was a party.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H), agreeing that the present appeal is covered by this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledges that leave has been granted by the Supreme Court in their challenge to the aforesaid judgment, indicating a potential disagreement with the High Court's precedent, but ultimately agrees that the present appeal is covered by the High Court's judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-37-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

M/s Improvement Trust, Fazilka ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

It is agreed that this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). 2.

We are informed that the revenue has challenged the judgement before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 25.01.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.01.25 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →