Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana Warehousing Corporation
High Court
30 Aug 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana Warehousing Corporation
Date of order
30 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana Warehousing Corporation, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 131 of 2010 was admitted for consideration offollowing substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ld.
Decision: 6.The appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula
Versus
M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation
ITA No. 131 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.8.2010
....Appellant.
...Respondent.
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shaveta Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 131, 153 and 247 of
2010.
2.ITA No. 131 of 2010 was admitted for consideration offollowing substantial questions of law:-
(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law inholding that the assessee is carrying outactivities incidental to the main objects of theCorporation for which it has been grantedregistration under Section 12AA?of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law inholding that the assessee is carrying outactivities incidental to the main objects of theCorporation for which it has been grantedregistration under Section 12AA?
(ii)whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law inholding that the assessee Trust is eligible orexemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act,1961 notwithstanding that the dominantactivities of the assessee are of businessactivities with profit motives and are not in thenature of charity?”
3.Questions of law in other appeals are also identical.
4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5.It is not disputed that the above questions are covered byorder passed today in ITA No. 563 of 2006 (Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Panchkula v. The Haryana Warehousing Corporation).Accordingly, the questions are answered against the revenue and infavour of the assessee.
6.The appeals are dismissed.
7.A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of theconnected cases.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
August 30, 2010gbs
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE
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.
EaseValue