Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Polo Hotels Ltd., Panchkula
High Court
04 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Polo Hotels Ltd., Panchkula
Date of order
04 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Polo Hotels Ltd., Panchkula, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHwhe ae al
ITA No. 141 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision: 04.02.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula
..Appellant
Vs.
M/s Polo Hotels Ltd., Panchkula
...KNespondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEK RAJ RAHUL GAR
Present :Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sunny Deep Juneja, Advocatefor the respondent.
KKKKK
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect involved isv13,56,000/-he 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, he prayed that liberty be granted tothe revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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
04.02.2016WdaSse
(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.
EaseValue