Itr/2/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Patiala v. Sharanjit Singh
High Court
29 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Itr/2/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Patiala v. Sharanjit Singh
Date of order
29 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itr/2/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Patiala v. Sharanjit Singh, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: No.51/Chandi/1990, ‘for theassessment year 1984-85, raising the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the I.T.A.T. was right in law in upholdingthe order of the first appellate authority thatcompensation received by the assessee wasa ca...
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 QORKR PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH
ITR No. 2 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.03.2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala
....... Appellant
)!*$+$
Sh. Sharanjit Singh
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant.
RAJESH BINDAL,J.
This reference has been filed in RA No.302/Chand1/1995arising out of I.T.A. No.993 & C.QO. No.51/Chandi/1990, ‘for theassessment year 1984-85, raising the following substantial question of
law:
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the I.T.A.T. was right in law in upholdingthe order of the first appellate authority thatcompensation received by the assessee wasa capitalreceipt when the amount received was for cessationof business earnings and one of the partnerscontinued to operate the business there?
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that
as the tax effect involved is less than |Ly20 lacs. However, she praysthat liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revivalof the reference in case something survives therein.
Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the reference by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case,
29 (23.701T@eIN
(RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGEH
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