Apellant v. M/S Vision Promoters Builders Pvt. Ltd.(Through Itsmanaging Director
High Court
16 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Apellant v. M/S Vision Promoters Builders Pvt. Ltd.(Through Itsmanaging Director
Date of order
16 Jan 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Apellant v. M/S Vision Promoters Builders Pvt. Ltd.(Through Itsmanaging Director, the High Court (2020) allowed the appeal.
Decision: ITA-80-2019 (O&M) ?DLearned counsel has argued that in fact this objection was taken but has not been dealt with| 3In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn, at this stage, with liberty to raise this question before the Tribunal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
ITA-80-2019 (O&M)Date of decision : 16.01.2020
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON
APELLANT
VERSUS
M/S VISION PROMOTERS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.(THROUGH ITSMANAGING DIRECTOR)
RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARITHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
222
Present :Mr. Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel withMs. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocatefor the appellant,222
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
CM;1304FCI];2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 156 days in re-
filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed,The delay of 156 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
ITAF80F2019
inThe issue raised before us is that the Tribunal decided the questionunder Section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) whereas theappeal was only against the order under Section 263 of the Act. A perusal oforder of the Tribunal does not disclose that any objection was taken in respect ofsections 263 of the Act rather the Department was trying to justify the action
under Section 153 C of the Act.
ITA-80-2019 (O&M)
?DLearned counsel has argued that in fact this objection was taken but
has not been dealt with|
3In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn, at this
stage, with liberty to raise this question before the Tribunal.
(AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE
( AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE
16[th]January, 2020shabha
Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable :
Yes/NoYes/No
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.