M/S PUNJAB POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. V. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS

CWP/29006/2017

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. against various commissioners of income tax, challenging notices, assessments, and penalties related to certain income tax proceedings. The core issue was the classification of an interest component as income, which had been previously addressed in ITA No.326 of 2015, where it was held that the interest component could not be treated as income of the petitioners. The court, acknowledging the precedent and the agreement of both parties, decided to quash the impugned orders and remand the matter for re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 682856 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.326 of 2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY BANSAL; AMIT PRASAD; B M MONGA
• Keywords: Assessment; Income; Income Tax; Interest component; Notice; Penalty
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.02.2020 CWP No.29006 of 2017 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CWP No.29007 of 2017 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CWP No.10043 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 & anr. ...... Respondents CWP No.10499 of 2019 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ...... Respondents POOJA SHARMA 2020.03.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP No.2123 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CWP No.17383 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & anr. ...... Respondents CWP No.17378 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. ...... Petitioner versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present :- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Prasad, Advocate and Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of above mentioned seven petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they are being decided by this common order. POOJA SHARMA 2020.03.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- 2 These seven writ petitions involve the same issue. In some cases the petitioners have challenged the notice, in some cases the assessment and in other levy of penalty. In all of them the petitioners have challenged the notices or orders passed under Section 148 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the consequent proceedings; those in turn had been passed on a premise that certain amount of money belonged to the petitioners-assessee. In ITA No.326 of 2015 decided on 03.02.2020 this Court, as regard the same issue held that that amount of money (interest component) could not be treated as income of the petitioners-assessee. 3 Both the learned counsel have very fairly agreed that most appropriate course of action would be that all the impugned orders are quashed and the same be re-decided (along with those notices which have also been challenged) after considering the objections of the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further agreed that the petitioners would not raise the plea of limitation. 5 Petitions stand disposed of. 6 Since the main cases have been decided, the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 27.02.2020 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2020.03.04 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "