Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Tohana
High Court
12 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Tohana
Date of order
12 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Tohana, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: MarketCommittee, Narwana Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
Market Committee, Tohana
I.T.A. No.187 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.7.2011
-----Appellant
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counselfor the Revenue. ---for the Revenue. ---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“E”, New Delhi dated 25.6.2010 in I.T.A. No.1746/DEL/2010 forthe assessment year 2007-08 proposing following question oflaw:-
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the expenditure of Rs.1,41,62,401/-claimed to have been contributed to HSAMBoard under statutory obligation by virtue ofSection 27 of the Punjab Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1961 is allowable withoutappreciating that no evidence could beproduced by the assessee to prove that suchexpenditure was actually incurred and whethersuch contribution can be treated to fall within theof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the expenditure of Rs.1,41,62,401/-claimed to have been contributed to HSAMBoard under statutory obligation by virtue ofSection 27 of the Punjab Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1961 is allowable withoutappreciating that no evidence could beproduced by the assessee to prove that suchexpenditure was actually incurred and whethersuch contribution can be treated to fall within the
ambit of application of income for charitablepurposes as defined in section 2(15) of theIncome-tax Act?
Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Courtdated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 in CIT v. MarketCommittee, Narwana
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
July 12, 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.