C I T vs. M/S HARAYAN TELECOM LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeals was covered against the appellant/department by the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA-776-2008, titled Sikander Cotton Oil and General Mills Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, Punjab, dated 02.07.2014. The reasoning provided is that the appellant's counsel conceded that the issue was covered by this precedent. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issues were expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (appellant/department) against M/s Haryana Telecom Ltd. (respondent/assessee). The appeals challenged orders passed by an authority, though the specific authority and assessment years are not detailed in the provided text. The core of the matter revolves around a question of law that the appellant stated was covered by a previous judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court. The procedural history is limited to the filing of these appeals before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the question of law raised in the appeals is covered against the appellant/department by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in ITA-776-2008 titled as Sikander Cotton Oil and General Mills Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, Punjab dated 02.07.2014. The appellant (Revenue) contended that the question of law in the present appeals was covered against them by the aforementioned Division Bench judgment. The respondent (Assessee) did not present any arguments in the provided text, but their position would be aligned with the appellant's acknowledgment of the binding precedent. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act were named in relation to the question of law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITAs-469 & 487-2008 (O&M) Date of decision:- 29.09.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...Appellant Versus M/s Haryana Telecom Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, and Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the question of law raised in the appeals is covered against the appellant/department by the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in ITA-776-2008 titled as Sikander Cotton Oil and General Mills Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, Punjab dated 02.07.2014. 2. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 29.09.2016 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2016.09.30 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
