PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I T JAIPUR-1 vs. M/S UDAIPUR MINEARLS DEV SYND P LTD

ITA/67/2016HC RajasthanRJHC02082212201604 July 20172 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. This decision is based on the Division Bench judgment of the same Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 207/2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur vs. M/s Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur) and other connected appeals decided on 01.06.2017. The reasoning provided is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (271 ITR 331), the issues are decided in favour of the assessee. The operative direction is that the appeals stand dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur (Revenue) against M/s Udaipur Minerals Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. (Assessee). The specific assessment years are not mentioned in the provided text. The appeals challenge an order or action by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue filed these appeals before the High Court. The High Court is considering the matter based on arguments presented by both sides.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the view taken by the CIT(A) and other authorities is required to be reversed (question of law, turning on the interpretation of tax provisions). The Revenue contended that the order of the Assessing Officer should be upheld and the view of the CIT(A) reversed. The Assessee relied on several judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., ACTO vs. Girrota Silica Udyog, Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd. vs. ITO, ITV vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd., Narne Tula Man Mfrs. P. Ltd. vs. Collector Central Excise, CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd., Tamilnadu Minerals P. Ltd. vs. CIT, Aspinwall & Co. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Mallikarjun Georesocues Associates, CIT vs. Empire Poly yarn P Ltd., and CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 67 / 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus M/S Udaipur Minearls Development Syndicate (P) Ltd., Golcha Trade Centre, M.I. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 71 / 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus M/S Udaipur Minearls Development Syndicate (P) Ltd., Golcha Trade Centre, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.C. Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 04/07/2017 1. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anuroop Singhi submits that controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.207/2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, State Circle, Jaipur Vs. M/s Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt.Ltd., Japur) & other connected appeals decided on 01.06.2017 wherein it has

(2 of 2) [ITA-67/2016]

been held as under:- "3. Counsel for the appellant has supported the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the view taken by the CIT(A) and the other authorities is required to be reversed. 4. However, counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 (ii) ACTO vs. Girrota Silica Udyog 93 STC 280 (Raj.) (iii) Arihant Tiles 7 Marbles P Ltd. vs. ITO 295 ITR 148 (Raj.) (iv) ITV vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd. 320 ITR 79 (SC) (v) Narne Tula Man Mfrs. P. Ltd. vs. Collector Central Excise 73 STC 81 (SC) (7 of 7) [ITA- 207/2009] (vi) CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd. 300 ITR 115 (Mad) (vii) Tamilnadu Minerals P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 695 (SC) at P.697 (viii) Aspinwall & Co. vs. CIT 251 ITR 323 (Sco At P.328) (ix) CIT vs. Mallikarjun Georesocues Associates 341 ITR 581 (Uttrakhand) at p. 584 (x) CIT vs. Empire Poly yarn P Ltd. 320 ITR 665 (SC) at p. 667 (xi) CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd. 300 ITR 115 (Mad). 5. Therefore, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 (supra), the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department." 2.1 In view of the above, the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeals stand dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 87-88.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →