Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANCHKUL v. DEPUTY EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER (E - ITA-368-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 311 (22 December 2005)

I.T.A.No.368 of 2005 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Income Tax Appeal No.368 of 2005

Date of decision:17.1.2006

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula ... Appellant.

Through

Mr.Rajesh Bindal, Advocate.

v.

Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (E&T), Yamuna Nagar ... Respondent

Through Nemo

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, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal, by the Revenue, under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') is directed against a common order, dated 10.2.2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, `the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. Nos.156 to 159/ I.T.A.No.368 of 2005 [2]

Chandi/2001, in respect of assessment year 1999-2000. According to the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal involves the following substantial question of law:

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in holding that the accountable person was not liable to collect tax at source under Section 206-C on the amount of licence fee being paid by the licensee and the State Government?"

Since the issue, sought to be raised by the Revenue, is no more res integra, insofar as this Court is concerned, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the issue before the Tribunal was whether income-tax was to be collected at source under Section 206-C of the Act by the Excise Department at the time of auction of liquor licences.

A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in Naresh Kumar and Co. and others v. Union of India and others, (2000) 243 ITR 760 and it was held that the Excise Department, which auctions the licence, is not a seller and the holder of the licence is not a buyer within the meaning of Section 206-C of the Act and therefore, tax at source is not to be collected from a licensee on the licence fee.

In the light of the said decision, with which we are in respectful I.T.A.No.368 of 2005 [3]

agreement, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law survives for our consideration.

Consequently, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.

( D. K. Jain )

Chief Justice

( Surya Kant )

Judge

17.1.2006

mk


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.