Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Amarjit Singh
High Court
27 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Amarjit Singh
Date of order
27 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Amarjit Singh, 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. 319 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 27.01.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana
Versus
Amarjit Singh
. . . Appellant
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant-revenue.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the tax effectinvolved in the present case is ` 4,46,790/-. He submitted that keeping in viewthe circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi,the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives 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2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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
January 27, 2016J.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.