The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Pathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot

ITA No. 81 of 2016 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No. 81 of 2016 Date of Decision : May 14, 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh .............................................................................. Appellant Versus M/s Pathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot.......... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ... Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue.for the appellant-Revenue. Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. ... AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 claiming that the following questions of law arise out oforder dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (forbrevity 'ITAT'), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 200 (Asr)/2010 forthe Assessment Year 2005-06:- (i)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in ignoringthe specific directions of this Hon'ble Court to discuss thescope of proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, whiledeciding the cases.the specific directions of this Hon'ble Court to discuss thescope of proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, whiledeciding the cases. (ii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law by ignoring the ratios laid down in the cases of PUDA and JDA (to theextent that the Improvement trusts carry out landdevelopment in a similar manner as developmentauthorities do). (iii)Whether the ITAT is right in law in wrongly deciding theissues and wrongly setting aside the impugned order infavour of the assessee trust while conflicting from itsown judgments in above cases, which are even otherwisebinding on it.issues and wrongly setting aside the impugned order infavour of the assessee trust while conflicting from itsown judgments in above cases, which are even otherwisebinding on it. (iv)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law while failed toconsider that above judgments e.g. PUDA vs. CIT andJalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT have beenfollowed by Tribunal of Amritsar Bench in JammuDevelopment Authority vs. CIT reported s (2012) 52SOT ASR 153 and upheld the order of CIT in whichSection 2 (15) of the Act w.r.t. “business, trade andcommerce” has been interpreted, which judgment inJammu Development Authority has been upheld firstlyby Hon'ble J&K High Court in ITA No. 164 of 2012 videits order dated 07.11.2013 and also by Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4990 of 2014vide its order dated 21.07.2014.consider that above judgments e.g. PUDA vs. CIT andJalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT have beenfollowed by Tribunal of Amritsar Bench in JammuDevelopment Authority vs. CIT reported s (2012) 52SOT ASR 153 and upheld the order of CIT in whichSection 2 (15) of the Act w.r.t. “business, trade andcommerce” has been interpreted, which judgment inJammu Development Authority has been upheld firstlyby Hon'ble J&K High Court in ITA No. 164 of 2012 videits order dated 07.11.2013 and also by Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4990 of 2014vide its order dated 21.07.2014. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem thatthe issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court inThe Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh v. M/sPathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot, ITA No. 89 of 2016 decided on ITA No. 81 of 2016 23.12.2016, where the similar issues have been decided against theRevenue and in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 14.05.2018 rupi ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable: Yes / No