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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/77/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117818201725 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 the judgment of a Division Bench of the same court, to which one of the judges (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) 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 noted that the Revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted in those cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the mentioned judgments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, appealed against an order concerning M/s Patiala Improvement Trust. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The specific assessment year(s) and the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has challenged a similar judgment before the Supreme Court, where leave has been granted.

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 Revenue contended that the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee based on prior Division Bench judgments of the High Court. The judgment does not record any specific counter-arguments from the Revenue on the merits of the case, but notes that the Revenue has challenged the aforesaid judgments 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-77-2017 (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 →