Talbro Forgings v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab
High Court
27 May 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Talbro Forgings v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab
Date of order
27 May 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Talbro Forgings v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 72/Asr/2009 dated25.9.2009 received on 7.10.2009, raising the following substantial questionsof law:- “(a)Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovisions of section 80HHC r.w.
Decision: In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.5.2011
Talbro Forgings
....Appellant
vs
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab)
...Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar GoelActing Chief JusticeHon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal,J.
This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011, as itis stated that questions involved in both the appeals are same.
The appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2003-04,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar, in ITA No. 73/Asr/2009 and ITA No. 72/Asr/2009 dated25.9.2009 received on 7.10.2009, raising the following substantial questionsof law:-
“(a)Whether on the true and correct interpretation of theprovisions of section 80HHC r.w. 80IA (9) r.w. 80IB(13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim ofdeductions under the Act?provisions of section 80HHC r.w. 80IA (9) r.w. 80IB(13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim ofdeductions under the Act?
(b)Whether interest u/s 234B is mandatory in nature andlevy of the said is permissible on the income thetaxability of which is under dispute and which couldnot be anticipated prior in time?levy of the said is permissible on the income thetaxability of which is under dispute and which couldnot be anticipated prior in time?
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits.Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that both thequestions are covered against the assessee by order dated 20.5.2011 passedby this court in ITA No. 121 of 2011 Vishal Tools & Forgings PrivateLimited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Punjab).
In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of ITA No. 138 of
2011.
(Rajesh Bindal)Judge
27.5.2011 vs
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)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.
EaseValue