COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH V. IMPROVEMENT TRUST MELA RAM STREET BATHINDA

ITA/384/2016

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh against the Improvement Trust, Bathinda, concerning the interpretation and application of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically related to the definitions and scope of 'charitable purpose' and its implications on the activities of the Improvement Trust. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar, which had favored the Improvement Trust. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal, referencing precedents that supported the Assessee's position.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700931 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Tribune Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Improvement Trust, Moga, PUDA vs. CIT, Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT, Jammu Development Authority vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K L GOYAL; ROHIT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: DENESH GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Exemptions; Income Tax; ITAT; Legal interpretation; Proviso; Improvement Trust
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 2(15); 12AA(3)

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 384 of 2016 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 384 of 2016 Date of Decision : May 14, 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh .............................................................................. Appellant Versus Improvement Trust, Bathinda ................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ... Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. K.L.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. ... AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming that the following questions of law arise out of order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'ITAT'), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 416 (Asr)/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- (i) Whether the ITAT has erred in law in ignoring the scope of proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, while deciding the cases. (ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in wrongly deciding the issues and wrongly setting aside the Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No. 384 of 2016 [ 2 ] impugned order in favour of the assessee trust while conflicting from its own judgments in above cases which are even otherwise binding on it. (iii) Whether the ITAT is right in law while it failed to consider that above judgments e.g. PUDA vs. CIT and Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT have been followed by Tribunal of Amritsar Bench in Jammu Development Authority vs. CIT reported as (2012) 52 SOT ASR 153 and upheld the order of CIT in which Section 2 (15) of the Act w.r.t. “business, trade and commerce” has been interpreted, which judgment in Jammu Development Authority has been upheld firstly by Hon'ble J&K High Court in ITA No. 164 of 2012 vide its order dated 07.11.2013 and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal © No. 4990 of 2014 vide its order dated 21.07.2014. (iv) The department had already filed appeal before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh against the order u/s 143 (3) for the A.Y. 2009-10 as well as the order of 12AA(3) of Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the same case. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court in The Tribune Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another and Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Improvement Trust, Moga [2017] 390 ITR 547 where the similar issues have been decided against the Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No. 384 of 2016 [ 3 ] Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) 14.05.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable: Yes / No Rupinder Kaur 2018.05.21 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "