Case LawHigh Court › Apellant v. M/S Vision Promoters Builder...

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that in fact this objection was taken but has not been dealt with| 3In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn, at this stage, with liberty to raise this question before the Tribunal.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that in fact this objection was taken but has not been dealt with| 3In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal as withdrawn, at this stage, with liberty to raise this question before the Tribunal.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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan