Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Chandigarh v. Professional Golf Tour of India # 1180 Ph-v Mohali

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2024ITA/345/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Commissioner appealed against an ITAT order granting Section 12AA registration to PGTI, Chandigarh. As PGTI Chandigarh had amalgamated with PGTI Delhi and never claimed exemption under Section 11, both parties agreed the challenge was academic. The High Court dismissed the appeal as otiose and infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as otiose and infructuous; interim orders vacated; pending applications disposed.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Chandigarh Vs Professional… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

213 IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB A N D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

ITA-345-2013 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 17.09.2024

¶3

Commissioner o f Income Tax-II Chandigarh …Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Professional Golf Tour of India (PGTI) ….Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶7

Present: Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Sr. Standin g counsel for the appellant.

¶8

Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate wi t h Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate an d Mr. Parnika Singla, Advocate for t h e respondent.

¶9

¶10

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) 1.

¶11

While t h e Income Tax Appellate Trib u nal (ITAT) adjudicated the Income Tax A p peal on 18.04.2013 granting registration under Section 12AA of the In c ome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaft e r referred to as the ‘Act’) to PGTI, Chandi g arh (Professional Golf Tour o f India) an affidavit has been sworn in by t h e Chief Executive Officer, P GTI, Mohali, who is the functionary of PGTI, Chandigarh applied fo r registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 18.07.2007 which w a s denied vide order dated 04.11.2007 by the Commiss i oner of Income Tax. Appeal b efore the ITAT ultimately res u lted in the order passed on 18.04.2013. In the meanwhile, the PGTI, C h andigarh has been

¶12

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2024.09.18 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

ITA-345-2013 (O&M)

¶14

amalgamated w ith PGTI, Delhi on 16.06.2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and it is stated that the P GTI, Chandigarh has never c l aimed any exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

¶15

Bo t h counsel for the parties are ad idem that in the aforesai d circumstances a nd considering the notice of re s olution of amalgamation place d on record of P G TI, Chandigarh having been amalgamated with PGTI, Ne w Delhi w.e.f. 0 1 .04.2010 and also on accou n t of the fact that the PGTI , Chandigarh So c iety has never claimed exempti o ns in terms of Section 11 of th e Act, the challe n ge to the order passed by t h e ITAT dated 18.04.2013 ha s become otiose a nd academic.

¶16

Th e refore, we are of the view that no purpose would be served i n adjudicating thi s appeal. Accordingly, the sa m e is dismissed having bee n rendered otiose and infructuous.

¶17

Al l interim orders stand vacated.

¶18

Al l pending applications, if a ny, also stand disposed o f

¶19

accordingly.

¶20

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶21

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶22

September 17, 2024 ps

¶23

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶24

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2024.09.18 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Chandigarh v. Professional Golf Tour of India # 1180 Ph-v Mohali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Chandigarh v. Professional Golf Tour of India # 1180 Ph-v Mohali

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

Vinod Chander Hasteer Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Harpal Singh Sekhon Vs Union of India

Sundeep Singh Bath Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

M/S Gill Finance Company Vs Union of India Ministry of Finance

Balvir Kaur Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

M/S Ama Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.