THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST CHANDIGARH ROAD HOSHIARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/39/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117602201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal was covered in favour of the assessee in view of two previous judgments of a Division Bench of the same court: 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court was informed that the Revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave had been granted in those appeals. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the prior judgments, implying relief for the assessee based on those precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (Revenue) filed an appeal against an order concerning M/s Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust (Assessee). The specific assessment year(s) and the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the High Court noted that the appeal was covered in favour of the assessee based on previous judgments of a Division Bench of the same court. It was also informed that the Revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave had been granted in those cases. The High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench 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)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee would implicitly contend that the present appeal is covered by the aforementioned High Court judgments, which were decided in their favour. The assessee would rely on the principle of precedent established by the Division Bench. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the appeal is covered by the prior High Court judgments. However, they informed the Court that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. This implies the Revenue is pursuing a higher legal challenge to the precedents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-39-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

M/s Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust ...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 2018.02.09 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →