THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

PDF · subscribers
ITA/78/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117819201725 January 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana 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 these prior judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific findings of the ITAT or the detailed reasoning for the prior High Court judgments are not elaborated upon in this order, as the appeal was decided on the basis of precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgments.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (the appellant/revenue) against M/s Jalandhar Improvement Trust (the respondent/assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The appeal challenges a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action under challenge and the ITAT's decision are not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the revenue has challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted in those cases. The present appeal is disposed of based on prior judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment 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) Assessee's contention: The assessee implicitly relies on the aforementioned High Court judgments, which are stated to cover the present appeal in its favour. Revenue's contention: The revenue acknowledges that the appeal is covered by the aforesaid judgments. However, it is noted that the revenue has challenged these 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-78-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.01.2018

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

...Appellant Versus

M/s Jalandhar 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 →