Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana State Co-Op Supply & Marketing Federation

Income-tax Appeal No.585 of 2010 **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.585of 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). 1.This Appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”) against order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh in ITANo.951/Chd/2009, for the assessment year 2006-07, raisingfollowing substantial questions of law:- “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ld. ITAT has erred inallowing deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) of the IT Act,1961 whereas it has been held that the income ofthe assessee by the way of storage/custody receipt is in the nature of business receipt? b)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified inissuing directions to the Assessing Officer regardingthe calculation of correct amount of proportionateexpenses of deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) of the Actwhen the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(e) itself is notavailable to the assessee?” 2.Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that thequestions raised have been decided in favour of the revenue by thisCourt vide order dated 8.9.2010 in ITA No.157 of 2005 (CIT Vs. M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing). 3.In view of the above, substantial questions of law areanswered in favour of the revenue. The appeal is allowedaccordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 18,2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge