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

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Shree Matsya Impex (P) Otd

High Court 29 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

29 Jan 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Shree Matsya Impex (P) Otd, 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 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHwhe ae al ITA No. 878 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: 29.01.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ..Appellant Vs. M/s Shree Matsya Impex (P) Otd.. ...Kespondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEK RAJ RAHUL GAR Present :Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. KK KK AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the taxeffect involved in the present case is=a12,68,389/-. He submitted thatkeeping in view thecircular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by theC.B.D.T., New Delhi, the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.However, liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revivalof the appeal in case something survives therein. |Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 1s being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.| (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE 29.01.2016 WdaSse (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.