HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPN.,CHA vs. CIT, SPL RANGE KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITR/63/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038042199831 October 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred to it is identical to a question previously decided by the same court in its judgment dated September 6, 2006, in the case of Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T.R. No.120 of 1998). Based on this prior ruling, the High Court answered the referred question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reasoning is that the court has already determined the applicability of Section 10(29) in a similar context for the same assessee. The operative direction is to answer the question of law as indicated, implying confirmation of the ITAT's order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Haryana Warehousing Corporation, is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'C', dated February 19, 1997, for the assessment year 1992-93. The ITAT's order pertains to the taxability of income amounting to Rs. 8,27,39,992/- derived from the procurement of wheat as an agent of the Government. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is considering a reference from the ITAT regarding a specific question of law. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had previously ruled on the matter, and this reference is a subsequent step.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that income of Rs. 8,27,39,992/- from procurement of wheat as an agent of the Government is not exempt u/s 10(29) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's contention, as implied by the reference of the question of law, is that the income earned from procuring wheat as an agent of the Government should be exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act. The revenue, conversely, argues that this income is taxable and not eligible for exemption under the said section. The ITAT has already ruled against the assessee on this issue, leading to the present reference to the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(29)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.63 of 1998 Date of decision: 31.10.2006 Haryana Warehousing Corporation. -----Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M.L. Garg, Advocate for the assessee. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. ----- ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’, New Delhi arising out of its order dated 19.02.1997 passed in I.T.A. No.5136(Del)/95 in respect of assessment year 1992-93:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that income of Rs. 8,27,39,992/- from procurement of wheat as an agent of the Government is not exempt u/s 10(29) of the Income-tax Act.” We find that identical question has been gone into by this Court in our judgment rendered on 06.09.2006 in Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax I.T.R. No.120 of 1998.

Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 31, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE

More judgments on Section 10(29)

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(29) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →