Cwp/29006/2017 Of M/S Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.02.2020 CWP No.29006 of 2017 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Petitioner VeTSuU The Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CWP No.29007 of 2017 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. _.... Petitioner| VerTSU The Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Ors. ...... RespondentsCWP No.10043 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. _.... Petitioner| VerTSU The Principal Commissioner of|Income Tax-2 & anr. ...... RespondentsCWP No.10499 of 2019 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Petitioner VeTSuU The Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax & ors. ...... Respondents -)- CWP No.2123 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. _.... Petitioner| VerTSU The Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax & ors. ...... Respondents CWP No.17383 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. _.... Petitioner| VerTSU The Additional Commissioner of.Income Tax & anr. ...... Respondents CWP No.17378 of 2018 (O&M) M/s Punjab Police Housing Corporation Ltd. _.... Petitioner| VerTSU The Additional Commissioner of.Income Tax & Ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEKE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICAVNEESH JHINGAN111 Present :-Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate withMr. Amit Prasad, Advocate and Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocatefor the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the respondent. 111 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) -This order shall dispose of above mentioned seven petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they are being decided by this common order. )These seven writ petitions involve the same issue. In somecases the petitioners have challenged the notice, in some cases theassessment and in other levy of penalty. In all of them the petitionershave challenged the notices or orders passed under Section 148 read withsection 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the consequent proceedings;those in turn had been passed on a premise that certain amount of money belonged to the petitioners-assessee. In |ITA No.326 of2015decided on03.02.2020 this Court, as regard the same issue held that that amount ofmoney (interest component) could not be treated as income of thepetitioners-assessee. 5Both the learned counsel have very fairly agreed that mostappropriate course of action would be that all the impugned orders arequashed and the same be re-decided (along with those notices which havealso been challenged) after considering the objections of the petitioners. /Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has furtheragreed that the petitioners would not raise the plea of limitation.8Petitions stand disposed of, 2Since the main cases have been decided, the pendingApplications, if any, also stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE 27.02.2020pooja sharma-l ( AVNEESH JHINGAN(JUDGE Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable | Yes/NoYes/No