Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
214-4 IN TH
COMMISSIO
M/S CHAND CORAM: H
Present M
M M
* SANJEEV PR
T order dated Chandigarh, whereby the CIT(Appeals) 2. T Officer, for th the benefit o (hereinafter re was granted r contention of Assessee was Act and it wa commercial a HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR I D ONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CH
V DIGARH GOLF CLUB, CHAND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sen for the appellant/Income Tax Dep Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocatesfo *** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) This Appeal is preferred by th 30.07.2012 passed by the In Bench-A, Chandigarh (hereinaf appeal preferred by the rev ) was dismissed. The CIT(Appeals) has set aside t he assessment year 2008-2009, a of exemption under Section 11 eferred to as “the Act”) consider registration under Section 12A o f the Assessing Officer and th not engaged in activities as laid as alleged that the activities of t nd trading business.
AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-3-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.08.2024 HANDIGARH
...…...Appellan V/s. DIGARH ….....Respondent
NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nior Standing counsel partment. and or the respondent-Assessee. he appellant-revenue against th ncome Tax Appellate Tribuna fter referred to as “the ITAT” venue against the order of th the order passed by the Assessin allowing the respondent-Assesse of the Income Tax Act, 196 ring that the respondent-Assesse of the Act since 2000. It was th he Revenue that the respondent d down under Section 2(15) of th the respondent-Assessee were o nt he l, ”) he g ee 1 ee he t- he of Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-3-2013 (O&
T Officer and h the responden of the Act sin 4. T reached to a CIT(Appeals) Act are conc 01.04.2009 a proceedings r benefit of exe 5. L CIT(Appeals) as above. It is the Act, can a of any Assess introduced. 6. B retrospective retrospective. had rightly be 7. W not find any law is not mad &M) Page 2 of 3
The CIT(Appeals) did not acc eld the respondent-Assessee to b nt-Assessee was already granted ce 2000 and was continuing to h The ITAT also did not accept the a factual finding concurring ) and held that so far as the prov cerned, which require scrutiny alone, therefore, they were relating to assessment year 20 emption under Sections 11 and 12 Learned counsel for the appellan ) as well as the ITAT have erred s submitted that the activities, a also be taken recourse for the pu see prior to 01.04.2009 i.e. from Be that as it may, we find that specifically by the Legislatur In view of the above, the order een set aside by the CIT(Appeals We, therefore, having reached to error worth warranting interfer de out. Accordingly, the Appeal cept the order of the Assessin be entitled for benefit, moreso, a d registration under Section 12A have same status. e contentions of the Revenue an with the order passed by th visions under Section 2(15) of th y, had become applicable w.e. not applicable to assessmen 008-2009. In view thereof, th 2 of the Act was extended. nt-revenue submits that both th d in reaching to such conclusion as defined under Section 2(15) o urpose of examining the activitie m the date the said provision wa t such a provision, unless mad re, cannot be presumed to b r passed by the Assessing Office s) and upheld by the ITAT. o the aforesaid conclusion and d ence. No substantial question o stands dismissed. g as A d he he .f nt he he ns of es as de be er o of Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-3-2013 (O&
A accordingly.
August 12, 20 Ess Kay
Whether Whether R &M) Page 3 of 3
All pending applications filed in
[SANJEEV
[SAN 024 speaking / reasoned
: Reportable
: n this case shall stand disposed o
V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE
Yes / No Yes / No of Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document