RUBYKON MANUFACTURING COMPANY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/55/2017HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01017697201705 December 2017Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal were no longer res integra and were covered by the Court's previous judgment dated 28th November, 2017, in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court noted that the assessee had already availed the benefit of exemption to the extent prescribed under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present appeal by making the directions issued in the M/s Stovekraft India case mutatis mutandis applicable to the present case. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was decided based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by Rubykon Manufacturing Company (the assessee) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (the respondent). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges the decision of the revenue. The procedural history indicates that this is an appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court notes that the substantial questions of law raised are covered by a previous judgment of the same court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee has already availed the benefit of exemption to the extent prescribed by the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal are no longer res integra and are covered by the judgment dated 28th November, 2017, rendered by this Court in ITA No.20 of 2015, titled as M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, implicitly accepts that the substantial questions of law are covered by the aforementioned judgment, as they prayed for the appeal to be disposed of in line with that decision. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the assessee in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, does not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the assessee's position regarding the applicability of the Stovekraft India judgment. The judgment states it is not in dispute that the questions are covered.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

ITA No.55 of 2017

Date of decision: 05.12.2017

Rubykon Manufacturing Company ..Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Income Tax

… Respondent

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellant: Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________________________

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

It is not in dispute that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal are no longer res integra and are covered by the judgment dated 28th November, 2017, rendered by this Court in ITA No.20 of 2015, titled as M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee has already availed the benefit of exemption to the extent of limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act.

As such, as prayed for, we dispose of the present appeal, making the directions issued in M/s

2 Stovekraft India (supra) mutatis mutandi applicable to the present case also.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( Sanjay Karol )

Acting Chief Justice

December 5, 2017 ( Ajay Mohan Goel ) (vt)

Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →