Case Law › High Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-Il, Chandigar...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Il, Chandigarh v. Brinda Chadha

High Court 20 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

20 Jan 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Il, Chandigarh v. Brinda Chadha, 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. 595 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: 20.01.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-Il, Chandigarh ..Appellant Vs. Brinda Chadha ...Kespondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEK RAJ RAHUL GAR Present :Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate withMr. B.M. Monga, Advocate &Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent. $$$$$ AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect involved isL14,81,220/, she has instructions to withdraw thepresent appeal in view of the circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issuedby the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, she prayed that liberty be granted tothe revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein| Dismissed as withdraw 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 2().01.201WdaSse (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.