Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh … v. State Bank Of Patiala, H.p. Sectt., Shimla …
High Court
03 Jul 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cmis
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh … v. State Bank Of Patiala, H.p. Sectt., Shimla …
Date of order
03 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh … v. State Bank Of Patiala, H.p. Sectt., Shimla …, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?[1] Sanjay Karol, ACJ (Oral): It is not disputed that the substantial question of law is no longer res integra for it having been decided by this Court, vide a decision dated 31[st] December, 2014 in ITA No.
Decision: State Bank ofPatiala Sectt., Shimla.As such, appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
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 HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ITA No.: 23 of 2014
Date of Decision: 03.07.2017
______________________________________________________________________
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh …..Appellant. Vs. State Bank of Patiala, H.P. Sectt., Shimla …..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
Sanjay Karol, ACJ (Oral):
It is not disputed that the substantial question of law is no longer res integra for it having been decided by this Court, vide a decision dated 31[st] December, 2014 in ITA No. 22 of 2014, titled as
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), ChandigarhVs. State Bank ofPatiala Sectt., Shimla.As such, appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Karol)
Acting Chief Justice
July 03, 2017 (bhupender)
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
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