COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA vs. GURU NANAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/290/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095621201109 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that once the Chief Commissioner's action of refusing exemption was quashed, the exemption would apply retrospectively. Therefore, the penalty imposed was rightly deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that upheld the deletion of a penalty. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for refusal to grant exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the order refusing exemption, which formed the basis for the penalty, was subsequently quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(23C)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-290-2011(O 213

IN TH

Commissione Guru Nanak E CORAM: H

Present: M f

M (

SANJEEV P

P 23.02.2011 p whereby it up deleting the p Act. 2.

L occasion to d Section 10 ( concerned jur

O&M)

Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

er of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana Vs.

Educational Trust, Ludhiana ****

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sen for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for th (through Video Conferencing

**** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present appeal has been prefe passed by the Income Tax Ap pheld the order passed by the Co penalty of Rs.14,23,480/- levied Learned counsel for the reven delete the penalty, as the refu 23C)(vi) of the Act was only risdictional High Court.

AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-290-2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2024 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nior Standing Counsel he respondent. ) erred against the order dated ppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, ommissioner of Income Tax (A), under Section 271(1) (c) of the nue submits that there was no usal to grant exemption under y subsequently quashed by the

) 4

t t

d , , e o r e RASHMI 2024.09.10 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-290-2011(O 3.

W High Court ha refusing to gr the date it wa (A) has rightl account of the 4.

W find that the Commissione Appellate Tri hereby dismis

September 09 Rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

O&M)

Page 2 of 2 We have considered the submiss as quashed the action of the Chie rant exemption, automatically th as applicable and accordingly, th ly deleted the penalty imposed b e aforesaid reason. We do not find force in the argu re is no reason to interfere w er of Income Tax (A) affirmed ibunal dated 23.02.2011. Acco ssed.

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

sions that once the jurisdictional ef Commissioner of Income Tax he exemption would apply from he Commissioner of Income Tax by the AO, which was solely on ument raised by the revenue and with the orders passed by the d by the order of Income Tax ordingly, the present appeal is JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

l x m x n d e x s RASHMI 2024.09.10 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →