M/S PUNJAB POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, noting that common questions of law and facts were involved across the seven petitions, decided to dispose of them by a common order. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent fairly agreed that the most appropriate course of action would be to quash all the impugned orders and re-decide the matters, including the challenged notices, after considering the objections of the petitioners. The petitioner's counsel further agreed not to raise the plea of limitation. The Court held that the impugned orders should be quashed and the cases re-decided. The ratio decidendi is that where a previous High Court decision has already settled a similar issue regarding the treatment of an interest component as income, and both parties agree to a re-adjudication considering objections, the existing orders should be set aside for a fresh determination. The operative direction is to quash the impugned orders and re-decide the cases.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd., filed seven writ petitions challenging various notices, assessments, and penalty levies under the Income Tax Act, 1961. These actions were initiated based on the premise that certain amounts of money belonged to the petitioner-assessee. The core of the dispute revolved around whether an interest component of money could be treated as the income of the petitioner. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had previously decided a similar issue in ITA No.326 of 2015 on 03.02.2020, holding that the interest component could not be treated as the assessee's income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notices, assessments, and penalty levies under Section 148 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequent proceedings are valid, given that they are based on the premise that a certain amount of money belonged to the petitioner-assessee? 2. Whether the interest component of money can be treated as the income of the petitioner-assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee challenged the notices, assessments, and penalty levies. They relied on the High Court's previous decision in ITA No.326 of 2015, which held that the interest component could not be treated as their income. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue. However, the revenue was represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
being decided by this common order. POOJA SHARMA 2020.03.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3- 2 These seven writ petitions involve the same issue. In some cases the petitioners have challenged the notice, in some cases the assessment and in other levy of penalty. In all of them the petitioners have challenged the notices or orders passed under Section 148 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the consequent proceedings; those in turn had been passed on a premise that certain amount of money belonged to the petitioners-assessee. In ITA No.326 of 2015 decided on 03.02.2020 this Court, as regard the same issue held that that amount of money (interest component) could not be treated as income of the petitioners-assessee. 3 Both the learned counsel have very fairly agreed that most appropriate course of action would be that all the impugned orders are quashed and the same be re-decided (along with those notices which have also been challenged) after considering the objections of the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further agreed that the petitioners would not raise the plea of limitation. 5 Petitions stand disposed of. 6 Since the main cases have been decided, the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 27.02.2020 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2020.03.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
