M/S Pooja Industries v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
27 Jun 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cmis
Parties
M/S Pooja Industries v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
27 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Pooja Industries v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ITA No. 4001 of 2013Decided on: 27.06.2013
M/s Pooja Industries
…Appellant.
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax
…Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh , Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellant: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.(Oral)
The only argument canvassed, in this appeal, is that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in not extending the benefit available to the appellant in terms of circular dated 1[st] July, 1994, which has been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the impugned decision.
2.This argument clearly overlooks that the said circular has been issued in relation to the H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968/Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore, will have no application to the proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
3.It is not the case of the appellant that under the provisions of Income Tax Act, appropriate Authority has made distinction between Roller Flour Mills and Flour Mills/Rice Mills. As such, in absence thereof, we find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 12 that the
circular, pressed into service by the appellant, will be of no avail to the appellant. Hence, dismissed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
Chief Justice
June 27, 2013 ( rajni / vt )
(Kuldip Singh )
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.