Disposed

Sml Isuzu Ltd. v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2013CWP/12538/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner sought relief regarding benefits under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act where its claim was only partially met. The court directed the respondent to consider and decide the representations via a speaking order within 60 days, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's representations within 60 days by passing a speaking order.

Sml Isuzu Ltd. Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.12538 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.12538 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision: 31.05.2013

¶6

SML Isuzu Limited (Formerly Swaraj Mazda Limited)

..... Petitioner

Versus

Union of India

..... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶12

Present: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The petitioner is inter alia involved in the ancillary work of research and development for which it has been certified by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research by an amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 brought in Finance Act, 1997 whereunder benefits were given to companies like the petitioner under Section 35 (2AB) of the Act enabling the petitioner to pay credit for capital expenditure incurred for the year 2004 and 2006 and revenue expenditure for 2004-07. The claim of the petitioner has been partially met inasmuch as the company has been granted revenue expenditure for the period 2007-08 and capital expenditure for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08. For the remaining benefit, the petitioner has made successive representations at Annexures P-4 and P-6 to P-10. The order at Annexure P-5 being the partial grant.

¶17

In the view of this Court, the petitioner has a right of consideration on the representations and procastination on the part of the

¶18

CWP No.12538 of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

respondent is not justified.

¶21

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner would be satisfied if a time bound direction is issued to the respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid representations by passing a speaking order and if need arises to give an opportunity of hearing to them and to permit the petitioner to produce such documents as may establish its claim.

¶22

The prayer appears to be fair.

¶23

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, a direction is issued to the respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid representations by treating the present petition as additional representation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Disposed of with the above directions.

¶25

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶26

31.05.2013 manju

Sml Isuzu Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sml Isuzu Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Sharma Vs Presiding Officer Indu. Disputes Trib. Cum Lab Court Panipat and Anr.

Jaga Ram Tirath Coop L & C Society Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Partap Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Panipat and Anr.

Vishal Jindal Vs Vikram Chopra

Shivam Educational Society of India Vs the Registrar of Societies and Anr.

Balwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.