Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana

High Court 24 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana
Date of order
24 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
2001-2002
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 566 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 24.01.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana .... APPELLANT Versus M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate,for the respondent-assessee. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The Department has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.5.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench, Chandigarh, in ITA No. 594/Chandigarh/2005 (the assessment year2001-2002), raising the following two substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was right in law in directing not to reduce 10%of the interest income from the profit of business? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that Central Sales Tax, and Sales Tax be excluded from the total turnover of theassessee while computing deduction u/s 80 HHC?” Earlier, vide order dated April 3, 2007, at the time of motionhearing, it was not disputed that the question No.2 is covered against therevenue by a judgment of this Court rendered in I.T.A. No. 293 of 2005“-Commissioner of Income taxI, Ludhiana v. M/s Vardhaman PolytexLimited, Ludhiana” decided on 22.5.2006.However, notice of motion wasissued with regard to question No.1. Today, counsel for the appellant very fairly states that even thequestion No.1 is also covered against the Revenue by decision of theSupreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5315 of 2007, Hero Exports, G.T.Road, Ludhiana v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Ludhiana,decided on 20.11.2007, where the same question has been decided in favourof the assessee. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, this appeal ishereby dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE January 24, 2008 ndj ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGEJUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan