Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Singhal Software, Parwanoo
High Court
05 Apr 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cmis
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Singhal Software, Parwanoo
Date of order
05 Apr 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Singhal Software, Parwanoo, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant(s): For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
Decision: As such, present appeals stand disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ITA No. 38 of 2009 along with ITA Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 52, 53 of 2009, 1 and 2 of2011
Date of decision: 5.4.2016
1. ITA No. 38 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo
…Appellant
…Respondent
2. ITA No. 39 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
…Appellant
Versus
M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo
…Respondent
3. ITA No. 40 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
…Appellant
Versus
M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo
…Respondent
4. ITA No. 41 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
…Appellant
Versus
M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo
…Respondent
5. ITA No. 42 of 2009Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo
…Appellant
…Respondent
6. ITA No. 52 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s Reliable Infosystems.
…Appellant
…Respondent
7.
ITA No. 53 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
Versus
M/s Globe Industries.
…Appellant
…Respondent
ITA No. 1 of 2011
8.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
…Appellant
Versus
M/s N.B. Infotech.
…Respondent
9. ITA No. 2 of 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla
…Appellant
Versus
M/s N.B. Infotech.
…Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant(s):
For the Respondent(s):
Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Goverdhan Sharma, Mr.Sushant Kaprate, Mr.Aditya Sood and Mr.Saurav Rattan, Advocates.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
Pursuant to circular No. 21/2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
Taxes dated 10.12.2015, an office order dated 4[th]January, 2016 stands issued by the Registrar (Judicial & JB) of this
Court to the following effect:
“Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order in pursuance of circular No. 21/2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 as under:
“(1) It is to be specifically mentioned by the Income Tax Department while filing the appeal in the High Court that the tax effect exceeds `20,00,000/- except in the following matters:
(a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or
(b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or
(c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or
(d) Where the additional relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts.
2. The pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed
`20,00,000/- are directed to be withdrawn/not pressed.”
2.
It is not in dispute that the total tax factor is less than
`20,00,000/- in each of these appeals and that they do not fall
within anyone of the exceptions. As such, present appeals
stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice
5[th] April, 2016 (Rajni/KRS)
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) 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.