Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. M/S Mount Inn Resorts Pvt. Ltd
High Court
29 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. M/S Mount Inn Resorts Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. M/S Mount Inn Resorts Pvt. Ltd, 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. 900 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided on : 29.02.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II
Versus
M/s Mount Inn Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Appellant
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant-revenue.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
CM No. 25543-CII of 2008
The appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court
fee.
CM stands disposed of.
ITA No. 900 of 2008
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that as per theorder of assessment dated 11.02.2005 (Annexure A-1), the tax effect is`16,10,000/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed in the circularNo.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. Shesubmitted that in view of the aforesaid circular, she has instructions towithdraw the present appeal. However, she 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2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 be taken to beaffirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriatecase.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
J.Ram
(HARI PAL VERMA) 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.