The Pr . Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. Punjab State Electricity Board The Mall Patiala

204IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH he fITA-44-2018 (O&M)DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 10, 2020 THE PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA VERSUS APPELLANT PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE MALL PATIALA RESPONDENT 2.ITA-457-2018 (O&M) THE PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA APPELLANTVERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE MALL PATIALA RESPONDENT AND ' ITA-463-2018 (O&M) THE PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA VERSUS APPELLANT PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE MALI PATIALA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocatefor the appellant(s). Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with|Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocatefor the respondent. ITA-44-2018 -)| AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): By this common order we intend to dispose of all the afore-saidthree appeals as the similar questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For convenience sake the facts are taken from ITA No. 44 of 2018. 3In all the afore-said appeals, the contention of learned counselfor the revenue is that the payment by the State to the assessee of the subsidyamount would have to be taxed on accrual basis and not on receipt basis. Itis, however, not denied that as regards the assessee it has been offering theamount of subsidy paid to it to tax on receipt basis and that subsidy whichhad accrued in the relevant assessment order was also similarly offered to taxin the subsequent year (on receipt). 4In the circumstances, the question proposed has been renderedacademic and consequently all the three appeals are dismissed. 5Since the main appeals are dismissed the pending civil misc.applications are also dismissed. IAJAY TEWARI]JUDGE JIAVNEESH JHINGANJUDGE FEBRUARY 10, 2020sham 1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes/No