Appellant revenue challenged ITAT's allowance of deduction under Section 80(P)(2)(e). High Court noted same questions decided in its favor previously.
The appeal is allowed accordingly; substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.1.2011
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Panchkula
...Appellant
Versus
M/s Haryana State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Ygoesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral)
“a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 whereas it has been held that the income of the assessee by the way of storage/custody receipt
Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2010
-2-
********
is in the nature of business receipt?
b) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in issuing directions to the Assessing Officer regarding the calculation of correct amount of proportionate expenses of deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) of the Act when the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) itself is not available to the assessee?”
Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing).
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
January 18,2011 Pka
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether storage/custody receipts constitute business receipts thereby disqualifying deduction claims under Section 80(P)(2)(e).
Whether High Court directions to Assessing Officer for calculating proportionate expenses are justified when deduction is unavailable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CIT Vs. M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply & MarketingReferred¶2
ITA No.157 of 2005 (CIT Vs. M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Panchkula
M/s Haryana State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation
Adarsh Kumar Goel
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
