THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST DHHOTI BARADARI PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/51/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117733201725 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 its own prior judgments 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 has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgments. The specific reasoning from those prior judgments is not provided, nor are the operative directions beyond disposing of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, against M/s Patiala Improvement Trust. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the decision of a lower authority, which is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged a previous judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The High Court is disposing of the current appeal based on its own prior judgments.

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 aforementioned Division Bench judgments of the High Court. The revenue's contention is not recorded in the judgment. However, the revenue's action of challenging the judgment before the Supreme Court and obtaining leave suggests a disagreement with the High Court's prior decisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-51-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

M/s Patiala 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 →