THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)CHANDIGARH vs. KARTARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/40/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117614201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that it was agreed that the appeal was covered by this precedent. Although the revenue has challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted, the High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgment.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh against the Kartarpur Improvement Trust. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is not explicitly stated, but it pertains to a decision in favour of the assessee. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a similar judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal was disposed of based on a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Kartarpur Improvement Trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the judgment in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee would likely rely on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, which has been agreed upon by both parties as covering the present appeal in favour of the assessee. They would argue that the facts and legal principles are identical to the cited precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledges that the appeal is covered by the aforesaid judgment in favour of the assessee. However, they have challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. This implies they are not conceding the issue but are bound by the High Court's precedent for the present appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-40-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Kartarpur 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 →