The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Ludhiana v. M/s Avon Cycles (P) Limited, Ludhiana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Nov 2006
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Provisions considered
- Finance Act, 1987
- Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 37(3A)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenses on car maintenance and insurance are not hit by the provisions of Section 37 (3A) of the Income Tax Act?”…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the assessee. JUDGMENT: Following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal) arising out of its order dated 7.1.1994 in ITA No.332/Chandi/1989, for the assessment year 1985-86:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the first proviso to section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f 1.4.1988, has retrospective application?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenses on car maintenance and insurance are not hit by the provisions of Section 37 (3A) of the Income Tax Act?” We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We proceed to answer the questions referred. Re:Q.No.1 We find that the matter is covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Allied Motors (P) Limited v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR ITR No.140 of 1995 2 677, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, Question No.1 is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Re:Q.No.2 We find that the issue involved in this question has been gone into by this Court vide judgment dated 18.9.2006 in ITR No.392 of 1995, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Punjab Tractors, Mohali, wherein, following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Limited v. CIT and another, (2005) ITR 546, the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, Question No.2 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 14, 2006 'gs' (Rajesh Bindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Finance Act, 1987; Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 37(3A).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 14 Nov 2006. The bench was RAJESH BINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.