IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.30 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Market Committee, Kalanwali. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.5.2010 in ITA No.405/Chd./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs.79,47,035/- claimed to have been contributed to HSAM Board under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 is allowable without appreciating that no evidence could be produced by I.T.A. No.30 of 2011 the assessee to prove that such expenditure was actually incurred and whether such contribution can be treated to fall within the ambit of application of income for charitable purposes as defined in section 2 (15) of the Income-tax Act?” Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 in CIT v. Market Committee, Narwana. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 07, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2