THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA DR MELA RAM STREET BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/42/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117636201725 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 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 another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The court was informed that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific relief granted or the amount in dispute was not detailed, but the operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (the revenue) has filed an appeal against the Improvement Trust, Bathinda (the assessee). The appeal challenges an order or action that is not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a judgment before the Supreme Court and has been granted leave to appeal. The present appeal is being disposed of based on prior judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment 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 contentions: The assessee relies on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in The Tribune Trust and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga, which is stated to cover the present appeal in their favour. Revenue's contentions: The revenue acknowledges that the appeal is covered by the aforementioned judgments but informs the court that they have challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and have been granted leave to appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-42-2017 (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 →