CIT CENTRAL LUDHIANA vs. MAJESTIC AUTO LTD.FOCAL POINT(DECIDED CASE)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its decision dated August 17, 2009, has answered the question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. This decision is based on a prior order passed by the same court in a related case, I.T.R. No. 88 of 1998 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. M/s Majestic Auto Limited). While the specific reasoning for the deletion by the ITAT is not elaborated in this judgment, the High Court's ruling indicates that it found no legal infirmity in the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 41,473/-. The operative direction is that the reference is disposed of in accordance with the aforementioned related order, implying the ITAT's deletion stands.
What were the facts?
This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, against M/s Majestic Auto Limited, Ludhiana. The reference arises from an order dated November 21, 1996, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in ITA No. 749/Chandi/91 for the assessment year 1985-86. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 41,473 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of salary and travelling expenses claimed by the assessee pertaining to the M/s Hero Honda Project, which the AO considered to have a separate identity. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is asked to decide a question of law arising from this ITAT order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,473/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of salary and travelling expenses claimed by the assessee pertaining to M/s Hero Honda Project, which is separate identity. The Revenue's contention, as implied by the question referred, is that the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 41,473/- for salary and travelling expenses related to the M/s Hero Honda Project, suggesting that this project had a separate identity and the expenses should not have been claimed by the assessee. The Assessee's contention, as implied by the ITAT's deletion, is that the expenses were legitimately claimed by the assessee and the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each side before the High Court, but the referred question frames the core dispute.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
I.T.R. No. 143 of 1998 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 143 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: 17.8.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ..........Appellant Versus M/s Majestic Auto Limited., Ludhiana ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Krishan Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench has referred following question of law for opinion of this Court arising out of its order dated 21.11.1996 passed in ITA No. 749/Chandi/91 for assessment year 1985-86:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.41,473/- made by Assessing Officer on account of salary and travelling expenses claimed by the assessee pertaining to M/s Hero Honda Project, which is separate identity” 2. In view of the order passed today in I.T.R. No. 88 of 1998
I.T.R. No. 143 of 1998 (2) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. M/s Majestic Auto Limited), the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 3. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 17, 2009
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
