Case Law › High Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar v. Pritam Singh Luthra

High Court 02 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

02 Feb 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar v. Pritam Singh Luthra, 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. 12 of 2013 (O&M)Decided on : 02.02.2016. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar Versus Pritam Singh Luthra ... Appellant ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITIALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate &Mr. Divya Suri, Advocatefor the respondent. )))) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is|413,93,588/-, he has instructions to withdraw the presentappeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by theC.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to therevenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein. 2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It 1s,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 02, 2016 smriti (RAJ RAHUL GARG)JUDGE

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.