Case Law › High Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chan...

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chandigarh v. M/S. Punjab State Civil Supply Corp. Ltd

High Court 06 Sep 2019 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

06 Sep 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chandigarh v. M/S. Punjab State Civil Supply Corp. Ltd, the High Court (2019) 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 HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH [TA-306-2018Date of decision: 06.09.2019 Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-1, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus M/s. Punjab State Civil Supply Corp. Ltd. .- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant, Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocatefor the respondent. >K K AJAY TEWARI_J (ORAL) inLearned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that sincethe tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed inCircular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.l7 of 2019 datedO08O8.2019 read with Letter No. KE.No 279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ date20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal.However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file anapplication for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. ?DDismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.| (AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE. 06.09.2019Dinesh ( HARNARESH SINGH GILL )|JUDGE Whether speaking/reasonedYes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

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.