Divya Prakash Society (Regd v. Cwp?
High Court
09 Apr 2015 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Divya Prakash Society (Regd v. Cwp?
Date of order
09 Apr 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Divya Prakash Society (Regd v. Cwp?, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal.
Decision: Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Panchkula 2 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Divya Prakash Society (Regd.)
Versus
2015.04.10 10:22
CWP? No.18067 ofZ012|Date of decision:0904.7015
— Petitioner
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula
...... Responden
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present:Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondent.
....
S.J.Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice(Oral):
1,The parties have no objection to the writ petition being disposed ofin view of the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in CWP No. 747 of 2013 titledVivek Shiksha Samiti vs. Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Panchkula
2 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders areset aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner of [Income ‘a(Exemptions) for passing a fresh decision in accordance with law includingconsidering the judgments of the Apex Court inCA No.5167 of 2008titled M/sQueen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, |decided on16.03.2015.
3)At present, there does not appear to be any reason to believe thatrecoveries will be made before the passing of the fresh order. The petitioner isalways at liberty to make an application before the concerned authority for a stay,if necessary. The petitioner has been paying the demand under protest and about2/3[rd]of the demand has already been paid. The respondent, therefore, shall nottake any coercive action, till the disposal of the appeal.
(S.J.Vazifdar)Acting Chief Justice
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.