THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST, VAKIL COLONY, G.T. ROAD, HANSI (PAN: AAATI3818E)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/423/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117640201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 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, to which one of the judges was a party. This judgment refers to '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 has challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific findings on the merits of the Improvement Trust, Hansi's case are not detailed, as the decision is based on precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, is the appellant, and the Improvement Trust, Hansi, is the respondent. The appeal is against a decision concerning income tax. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is hearing the appeal. The judgment was delivered on January 25, 2018. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has challenged a prior judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The current appeal is being disposed of based on existing judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee based on previous judgments of the High Court. This is a question of law. The Revenue's contention is that the appeal is covered by 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). The Revenue also notes that it has challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly recorded, but the outcome suggests agreement with the Revenue's position regarding the applicability of the precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-423-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Improvement Trust, Hansi ...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 2018.01.29 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →