PB.ST. COOP SUPPLY AND MARK FED LTD. vs. CHIEF COMMR. OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10670/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01048116200616 February 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that in view of the subsequent development, whereby the income of the petitioner-assessee has been assessed at NIL, the question regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been rendered academic. The counsel for the respondents had no objection to the withdrawal of the petition. Consequently, the Court ordered accordingly. The specific findings on the merits of the original dispute, if any, are not recorded as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., filed a writ petition (CWP-10670-2006) challenging an order or action by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and another respondent. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The core of the dispute appears to have involved the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A subsequent application (CM-2008-2017) was filed to place on record subsequent events, specifically orders Annexures P-9 and P-10. The petitioner's income was subsequently assessed at NIL.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has become academic in view of the subsequent assessment of the petitioner's income at NIL? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that due to the subsequent development where the petitioner-assessee's income has been assessed at NIL, the issue concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B has become academic. Therefore, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents had no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CM-2008-2017 in/and CWP-10670-2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-2008-2017 in/and CWP-10670-2006 Date of decision: 16.02.2017 Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. ..... Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. BM Monga and Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocates for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM-2008-2017 This is an application under Rule 32 of the writ jurisdiction (Punjab & Haryana) Rules, 1976 read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record the subsequent events including the orders Annexures P-9 and P-10. Notice of the application to learned counsel for the non- applicant/respondents. At the asking of Court Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. The copies of orders Annexures P-9 and P-10 filed along with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Rishu Kataria 2017.02.20 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CM-2008-2017 in/and CWP-10670-2006 -2- CWP-10670-2006 At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent development whereby the income of the petitioner-assessee has been assessed at NIL figure, therefore, the question with regard to levy of interest under of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been rendered academic. In view thereof, learned counsel submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the withdrawal of petition. Ordered accordingly. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 16, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.02.20 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →