THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX (C) LDH. V. M/S NAHAR INTERNATIONAL LTD.

ITR/124/1997

AI Insights

The case involves multiple references and appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana against M/s Nahar International Limited concerning the applicability of certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 80-I(8) and 80-I(9). The core legal question was whether these sections applied to the respondent's case for the assessment years in question. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the respondent, a decision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the High Court. The court's decision was influenced by precedent set in earlier similar cases and the specific arguments presented regarding the applicability of the contested sections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717899 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITR No.410 of 1995
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY BANSAL; KRITEKA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KATOCH
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Income tax appeal; Income-tax Reference; Section 80-I
• Section: 256(2); 80-I(6); 80-I(8); 80-I(9)

Judgement Text

"I.T.R. No.124 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) I.T.R. No.124 of 1997. Decided on:-October 29, 2013. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana. .........Applicant. Versus M/s Nahar International Limited, Ludhiana. ...........Respondent. (2) I.T.A. No.50 of 2004. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana. .........Appellant. Versus M/s Nahar International Limited, Ludhiana. ...........Respondent. (3) I.T.R. No.90 of 1997. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana. .........Applicant. Versus M/s Nahar International Limited, Ludhiana. ...........Respondent. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon. ***** Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kriteka, Advocate for the respondent. Yag Dutt 2013.12.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document I.T.R. No.124 of 1997 -2- Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Income Tax Reference No.124 of 1997, Income Tax Appeal No.50 of 2004 and Income Tax Reference No.90 of 1997, all titled “The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus M/s Nahar International Limited, Ludhiana” as they involve adjudication of the same questions of law referred, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal). It would be appropriate to record that with respect to the second question, referred for an answer, in ITR No.90 of 1997 the revenue had filed a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) but the said petition was dismissed. The Tribunal, therefore, could not have referred the second question. The question of law referred arises from order dated 9.5.1997, passed by the Tribunal and reads as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that provisions of section 80-I(8) 80-I(9) are not applicable in this case?” As regards this question, a similar question was decided by the Tribunal with respect to assessment year 1992-93 in favour of the assessee on the basis of its earlier orders passed for assessment years 1989-90, 1990- 91 and 1991-92. With respect to orders relating to assessment year 1989-90, a reference, ITR No.410 of 1995, raising the same question came to be Yag Dutt 2013.12.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document I.T.R. No.124 of 1997 -3- decided against the revenue on 2.7.2010. The question having already been answered against the revenue, the present reference is answered in terms of order dated 2.7.2010 passed in ITR No.410 of 1995. It would, however, be necessary to point out that apart from a question relating to Section 80-I(8), the reference also mentions Section 80-I(6) of the Act. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal while deciding the quantum appeal, reveals that the revenue had not addressed any argument on Section 80-I(6). We, therefore, find no reason to answer this part of the question. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we dispose of the reference in the aforesaid terms. (Rajive Bhalla) Judge (Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge October 29, 2013 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.12.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "