M/S. J.v. Steel Traders, Moga v. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Moga
High Court
21 Dec 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S. J.v. Steel Traders, Moga v. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Moga
Date of order
21 Dec 2020
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. J.v. Steel Traders, Moga v. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Moga, the High Court (2020) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appeal was admitted vide order dated 09.03.2015 raising the following questions of law:- DINESH KUMAR2020.12.23 12:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document “ (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 10760-CII of 2020 in/and
I.T.A. No. 400 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.12.2020
M/s. J.V. Steel Traders, Moga
Versus
.......... Appellant
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Moga
.......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
Present: Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
[ The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court ]****
JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The Assessee, a partnership firm, had filed an appeal
under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order
dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short “the Tribunal”), raising a demand on account of the additions of ` 45 lacs for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
The appeal was admitted vide order dated 09.03.2015
raising the following questions of law:-
DINESH KUMAR2020.12.23 12:53I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document
“ (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the judgment of F.C. Sondhi and Co. by holding that the insurance premium paid by the petitioner firm on account of Keyman Insurance Policy is not deductible as business expenditure whereas the Assessing Officer had not even
C.M. No. 10760-CII of 2020 in/and I.T.A No. 400 of 2014 (O&M)
examined the same?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal is justified in disallowing the premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policy?”
Now, an application bearing CM No. 10760-CII of 2020
(duly supported by the affidavit dated 08.04.2020 of Sh. Janak Raj Bansal, a partner of the appellant-partnership firm) has been filed by
the applicant-appellant, seeking an unconditional withdrawal of the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order dated 21.05.2014 (A-6) passed the Tribunal has been recalled and the appeal itself filed inter alia on by the Revenue before the Tribunal stands withdrawn, account of monetary limit.
On the oral request of counsel for the applicant-appellant, the main case is taken up today itself.
In view of above as well as contents of the application bearing CM No. 10760-CII of 2020, the same is allowed, subject to dismissed as withdrawn.all just exceptions, and the main appeal is
( JASWANT SINGH )JUDGE
December 21, 2020( SANT PARKASH )'dk kamra'JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether ReportableYes/No
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.