Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Punjab...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd

High Court 13 Dec 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd
Date of order
13 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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.666 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing counselfor the Revenue.for the Revenue. --- 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,Chandigarh dated 31.12.2009 in I.T.A. No.874/Chandi/2009proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct inholding that the sale of shares by the assessee was acapital gain and not profit and gain from business.case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct inholding that the sale of shares by the assessee was acapital gain and not profit and gain from business. (ii)Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct indirecting the department to follow the principal cannotdepart from the accepted position in the earlier years.”case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was correct indirecting the department to follow the principal cannotdepart from the accepted position in the earlier years.” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated30.9.2010 in I.T.R. No.20 of 2000The Punjab State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. CIT.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 13, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
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