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

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S. Kapsons Associates

High Court 04 Aug 2015 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

04 Aug 2015

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S. Kapsons Associates, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: For the reasons stated therein, this appeal is also dismissed.

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 HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No. 366 of 2013 (O & M)Date of decision: 04.08.2015 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....Petitioner(s) Versus M/s. Kapsons Associates ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate,for the respondent. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) The four questions in this appeal are identical to the first fourquestions raised in ITA No. 354 of 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana vs. Kapsons Associates, which, we have, by separate order andjudgment of even date, dismissed. For the reasons stated therein, this appeal is also dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 04.08.2015shivani (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)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.