THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. M/S H.M.M LTD, NABHA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/69/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035043199617 September 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided the reference based on a statement made by the counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the specific question referred had already been answered in a previous, related case (ITR Nos. 52 and 53 of 1988, also involving M/s HMM Ltd, Nabha and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala) by an order dated 30.09.2008. Consequently, the High Court did not independently adjudicate the merits of the ITAT's decision. Instead, it answered the present reference in terms of the aforementioned order dated 30.09.2008. The specific reasoning or findings from the order dated 30.09.2008 are not detailed in this judgment, nor is the specific ratio decidendi of that prior order explicitly stated here. The operative direction is to answer the reference in line with the prior decision.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR No. 69 of 1996) before the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, and the respondent is M/s H.M.M. Ltd., Nabha. The reference concerns a question of law arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core of the dispute revolves around whether an amount of Rs. 10,30,747/- should be treated as part of the reserve and consequently includible in the capital of the assessee under the Sur-tax Act. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had previously ruled on this matter, leading to the present reference to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 10,30,747/- should be treated as part of the reserve and hence includible in the capital of the assessee under the Sur-tax Act in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in 203 ITR 1005? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the question referred has already been answered in its favor in a previous order dated 30.09.2008, passed in ITR Nos. 52 and 53 of 1988 (M/s HMM Ltd, Nabha Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala). The Revenue relied on this prior judicial pronouncement to argue that the ITAT's decision was incorrect.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ITR No.69 of 1996 Date of Decision : 17.09.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ........Petitioner Vs. M/s H.M.M. Ltd. Nabha ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR.BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

Present:- Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the Applicant-Revenue. Mr.K.L.Goyal, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. * The question, referred by the Tribunal for an answer reads as follows: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs.10,30,747/- should be treated as part of the reserve and hence includible in the capital of the assessee under the Sur-tax Act in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in 203 ITR 1005? Counsel for the Revenue, states on the basis of order dated 30.09.2008, that the said question has already been answered in ITR Nos.52 and 53 of 1988 (M/s HMM Ltd, Nabha Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala). In view of statement made by counsel for the Revenue, the reference is answered in terms of order dated 30.09.2008, passed in ITR Nos. 52 and 53 of 1988 (M/s HMM Ltd, Nabha Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala). (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE 17.09.2013 (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) anil JUDGE Anil Kumar 2013.09.25 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →