THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)CHANDIGARH vs. KAPURTHALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST RAILWALY ROAD KAPURTHALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/49/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117710201725 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 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 in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the revenue has challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The specific findings of the Division Bench judgment that are being applied are not detailed in this order, nor are the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal in terms of the prior judgment.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh against an order concerning the Kapurthala Improvement Trust. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The nature of the order or action under challenge and the authority that passed it are not detailed, other than it being an appeal by the revenue. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal is disposed of in terms of a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this 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)? (Question of law) The assessee's contention is that the present appeal is covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The revenue's contention is that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The revenue also stated that they have challenged the judgment 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-49-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

Kapurthala 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 →