THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS CHD vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA DR MELA RAM STREET BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/41/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117625201725 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 High Court in '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 noted that the Revenue had challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave had been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. No specific finding on the merits of the current appeal was recorded, as it was decided based on precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the mentioned judgments.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (Revenue) has filed an appeal against the Improvement Trust Bathinda (Assessee). The assessment years are not specified. The appeal challenges a previous judgment. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has challenged similar judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal is being disposed of in terms of prior judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee based on previous High Court judgments? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in '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 Revenue also informed the Court that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-41-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Improvement Trust Bathinda ...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 →