Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Dr. Puran Chand Medical Charitable Trust,Yamuna Nagar
High Court
01 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Dr. Puran Chand Medical Charitable Trust,Yamuna Nagar
Date of order
01 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Dr. Puran Chand Medical Charitable Trust,Yamuna Nagar, the High Court (2016) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 195 of 2010
Decided on : 01.02.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana
Versus
M/s Dr. Puran Chand Medical Charitable Trust,Yamuna Nagar
. . . Appellant
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with
Mr. Gaurav Kamboj, Advocate
for the appellant-revenue.
Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent-assessee.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect involved is ` 7,58,320/-, he has instructions to withdraw thepresent appeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issuedby the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted tothe revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein.
2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is,however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
February 01, 2016
J.Ram
(RAJ RAHUL GARG) JUDGE
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.