Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Balji...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Baljinder Singh Khanna

High Court 21 Aug 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_jbp
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Baljinder Singh Khanna
Date of order
21 Aug 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Baljinder Singh Khanna, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR I.T.A. No.220/2012, I.T.A.No.222/2012 & I.T.A.No.223/2012 Commissioner of Income Tax …..Appellant Versus Shri Baljinder Singh Khanna ….Respondent ============================================= Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief JusticeHon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, J. ============================================= Shri Sanjay Lal and Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocates for theappellant/Commissioner of Income Tax. Shri Sumit Nema and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocates forthe respondent. ============================================= Reserved On : 21.07.2015Date of Decision : 21.08.2015 J U D G M E N T { 21[st] August, 2015} Per: A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice: These appeals are filed by the Department qua singleassessee, regarding three separate Assessment Years i.e. 2005-06 to2007-08, bearing I.T.A. Nos.220, 223 and 222 of 2012respectively. 2.The substantial question raised in these appeals is identical tothe substantial question answered in I.T.A. No.40/2012 (TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. M/s Global Reality).Accordingly, even these appeals succeed on the same terms bysetting aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal with regard tothe deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10)(a) ofthe Income Tax Act and instead the decision of the AssessingOfficer to disallow the said deduction is upheld. No order as tocosts. (A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Psm.
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan