Haryana State Co-Operative Agricultural And Rural Development Bank Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula
High Court
27 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Haryana State Co-Operative Agricultural And Rural Development Bank Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula
Date of order
27 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Haryana State Co-Operative Agricultural And Rural Development Bank Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH CQURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
246
Civil Writ Petition No.62/77 of 201Decided on: 27.03.2019!
Haryana state Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula
... Respondents
CORAMN:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present:Ms. Raghika Suri, Senior Advocate withMr. Manpreet Singn Kanda, Aavocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the respondent-Revenue.
....
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The prayer maae in this petition filed under Articles 226/22/ of theConstitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of|Certiorari, tor settingaside the notice dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-/) issued under Section 226(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act’) and the order dated 19.02.2019
4Annexure P-10) rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner,2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue hasproduced a copy of communication dated 26.03.2019 addressed to the BranchManager, Punjab National Bank, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula issued by theassessing officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle,Panchkula, withdrawing the attachment notice issued under Section 226(3) of theAct. [he said communication is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
3 In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties submitted thatthe present petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may bedisposed of as such.
4Ordered accordingly.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE
March 27, 2019sonia gugnani
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE
Yes/NoYes/No
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.