Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LU versus M/S HIGHWAY CYCLE INDUSTRIES LUDHIANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Lu v. M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ludhiana - ITC-4-1994 [2005] RD-P&H 247 (5 December 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

I.T.C. No. 4 of 1994

Date of Decision: February 20, 2006

Commissioner of Income Tax ...........Appellant (Central), Ludhiana Through

` Mr.D.S.Patwalia,Advocate.

Versus

M/s Highway Cycle Industries

Ludhiana ..........Respondent

Through

Mr.Akshay Bhan,Advocate.

CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.K.Jain, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant

1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -----

D.K.Jain,CJ.(Oral)

By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961(for short, the Act), the Revenue seeks a direction to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,Chandigarh (for short, the Tribunal) I

to state the case and refer the following question, stated to be arising out of ITA No. 494 of 1998, in respect of assessment year 1976-77, for the opinion of this Court:-

" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the security deposit of Rs.50,000/- and current liabilities of Rs.3,84,880/- as `borrowed moneys' for the purpose of allowing claim of deduction u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act,1961?"

From the order passed by the Tribunal in Revenue's application under Section 256(1) of the Act, (RA No.125/Chandi/92), we find that Revenue's application on a similar question, pertaining to assessment year 1977-78, was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.4.1986. While disposing of Revenue's appeal vide order dated 12.2.1992, the Tribunal had placed reliance on its decision in respect of assessment year 1977-78.

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue was granted one final opportunity to seek instructions as to whether the Revenue had challenged order dated 29.4.1986 passed by the Tribunal in Revenue's reference application under Section 256(1) of the Act in respect of assessement year 1977-78.

Mr.Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue states that despite best efforts, he has not been able to seek any instructions in that behalf.

Mr.Bhan, learned counsel for the Assessee also submits that so far the Assessee has not received any notice from this Court in respect of assessment year 1977-78.

In view of the aforenoted factual scenario, we are constrained to dismiss the present petition for non-prosecution.

Ordered accordingly.

( D. K. Jain )

Chief Justice

(Surya Kant)

Judge

February 20, 2006

arya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.