Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. Eee
High Court
10 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. Eee
Date of order
10 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. Eee, 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.
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
ITA No.724 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: February 10, 2016
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana
Versus
eee APpellant
M/s Oswal Knit India Ltd. Ludhiana
eee RESpondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant.
&&&&&
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect involved is418,44,334/-. He submitted that keeping in view thecircular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi,the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.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, he prayed thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something 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2 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 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 10, 2016
Dinesh Bansal
(RAJ RAHUL GARGJUDGE
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.