The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-I, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board, Chandigarh

ITA No.72 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH (1) ITA No.72 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh VeTSUS ....Appellant M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board, Chandigarh ....Respondent (2)ITA No.74 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh....Appellantversus M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board, Chandigarh ....Respondent(3)ITA No.75 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh....AppellantVersus M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board, Chandigarh ....Respondent (4)ITA No.96 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, ChandigarhVersus ....Appellant M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board, Chandigarh ....Respondent Date of decision: 20.12.2016 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL eK SR Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant(s). Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocatefor the respondent(s). eK SR S.J. VAZIFDAR,CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) These appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunalpertaining to the Assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. It is agreed that theresult in these appeals follow the result in ITA No.73 of 2016, which wedisposed of by a separate order and judgment passed today. The matterrelated to the interpretation of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,Section 201 was amended as a result whereof the unamended Sectionapplies to all the years except Assessment Year 2011-12 and the amendedSub-Section (1A) applies to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The judgment inITA No.73 ot 2016 considers the effect of the unamended as well asamended portion of the provisions of Section 201 in so far as the same isrelevant for the purpose of these appeals. 2 Although ITA No.73 of 2016 was in respect of the AssessmentYear 2007-08, for the reasons stated in our judgment in ITA No.73 of 2016,these appeals are also disposed of in the same terms. In other words, thequestion of law framed by us in that appeal is also framed in each of theseappeals and answered in favour of the appellant/revenue. As the question oflaw was raised in relation to the assessee/respondent's alternativecontention, the same has been answered against the assessee/respondent. It ITA No.72 of 2016 would be necessary to afford the assessee/respondent an opportunity ofhaving its main submission decided as well by the Tribunal. The mainsubmission relates to the issue as to whether the provisions of Section 194Cof the Act at all apply to the assessee's case. 3)The appeals are accordingly disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of otherconnected cases. (S.J. VAZIFDAR)CHIEF JUSTICE December 20, 2016Jyoti I (DEEPAK SIBAL)JUDGE (1)Whether speaking/reasonedYes/No(11»Whether reportableYes/No