In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jind Co-P. Sugar Mills Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: No.2400/Del/08 for theassessment year 2004-05 raising following question of law:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Commissioner of Income-tax.
Vs.
Jind Co-p. Sugar Mills Ltd.
I.T.A. No.179 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.1.2011
-----Appellant.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant.for the appellant.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi dated 24.4.2009 in I.T.A. No.2400/Del/08 for theassessment year 2004-05 raising following question of law:-
(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting theaddition made by the Assessing Officer on account ofsubscription and contribution made to the StateFederation of Co-operative Sugar Mills withoutappreciating the facts that this contribution is notrelating to the assessee’s business.”case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting theaddition made by the Assessing Officer on account ofsubscription and contribution made to the StateFederation of Co-operative Sugar Mills withoutappreciating the facts that this contribution is notrelating to the assessee’s business.”
It is not disputed that the matter is covered against therevenue by order passed today in I.T.A. No.969 of 2008 inCITv.The Jind Coop Sugar Mills Ltd.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
January 06, 2011ashwani
(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.