THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. M/S MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/374/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01079143201910 December 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016. In that previous decision, an identical question as claimed in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning is that if a similar issue has already been decided by the same court and found not to be a substantial question of law, then subsequent appeals on the same issue would also be dismissed on the same ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT's order was in relation to a stay application (No. 711/Del/2018) concerning ITA No. 1245/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee is M/s Motorola Solutions India Private Limited. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's order, which itself was in the context of a stay application related to a pending appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law arising in the present appeal is a substantial question of law, as required for an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the appeal raises a substantial question of law. However, the Revenue conceded that the matter is no longer res integra and has been concluded by a previous decision of the High Court. The Revenue relied on the decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016, which held that an identical question was not a substantial question of law. The assessee's specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-374-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ... Appellant v/s M/s Motorola Solutions India Private Limited ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI Present :- Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. * * * * AJAY TEWARI

, J. (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the order dated 18.10.2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-”I-1” (Friday) New Delhi, in stay application No. 711/Del/2018 (in ITA No. 1245/Del/2018) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled as “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refigeration Ltd.”, decided on 25.04.2016, whereby, identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. 3. For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. JANKI BHATT 2019.12.19 15:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITA-374-2019 (O&M) - 2 - 4. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending CM, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE

(VIVEK PURI) 10.12.2019 JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JANKI BHATT 2019.12.19 15:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →