Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Luaniana v. Mukesh Mittal
High Court
28 Nov 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Luaniana v. Mukesh Mittal
Date of order
28 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Luaniana v. Mukesh Mittal, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT QF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT |CHANDIGARH
LTA-436-2009 |(O&M)Date of decision:- 28.11.2018
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Luaniana
.. Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Mittal
.. Respondent
CORAM* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARITCHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dnugga, Advocate,
for the appellant.
x KK*
KRISHNA MURARI[C.J.(ORAL)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that|since the tax effect involved 1s.233,13,958/-, she has instructionsto withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018,dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New|Delhi. However, she has prayea that liberty be granted to the|revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case.something survives therein.
2.|Dismissed as withdrawn with Liberty as prayed Tor. It 1s, however, Clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue|snall not pe taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue 1s beingleft open to be adjudicated 1n an appropriate case.
(KRISHNA MURART)
CHIEF JUSTICE |
(ARUN PALLT)
JUDGE
29.11.2018
Anodh|
Wnetner s)eakin0/reasonedYes/No|Whether re)ortableYes/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.