C.I.T.PATIALA vs. M/S ELECTRONICS SYSTEM PUNJAB LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITR/601/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032608199517 January 2007Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) allowing investment allowance to the assessee under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1987-88. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that an identical issue had already been decided by the same High Court in CIT, Patiala v. M/s Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali (I.T.R. No.244 of 1995) on November 1, 2006. In that precedent, the High Court had answered the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, for the same reasons stated in the prior judgment, the present reference was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (the revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal, in its order dated January 17, 1995, in I.T.A. No.134/Chandi/1990, upheld the decision of the CIT(A) allowing investment allowance to M/s Electronics System Punjab Ltd., Mohali (the assessee) for the assessment year 1987-88. The revenue is challenging the allowance of this investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) allowing investment allowance to the assessee u/s 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1987-88? The revenue contended that the Tribunal was not right in law in allowing the investment allowance. The assessee argued in favour of the allowance. The judgment notes that the revenue did not dispute that an identical issue had been decided by the same High Court in a previous case, I.T.R. No.244 of 1995 – CIT, Patiala v. M/s Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali, decided on 1.11.2006, which was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.T.R. No.601 of 1995 Date of Decision:17.01.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Electronics System Punjab Ltd., Mohali

.....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. **** Rajesh Bindal, J. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.134/Chandi/ 1990 dated 17.1.1995 in respect of assessment year 1987-88:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) allowing investment allowance to the assessee u/s 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1987-88?” It is not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that an identical issue has already been gone into by this Court in I.T.R. No.244 of 1995 – CIT, Patiala v. M/s Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali decided on 1.11.2006 which has been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. For the reasons stated therein, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE January 17, 2007

( M.M.KUMAR ) renu JUDGE

More judgments on Section 32A

All 120 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →