Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructuredevelopment Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula
High Court
05 Dec 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructuredevelopment Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula
Date of order
05 Dec 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructuredevelopment Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula, the High Court (2015) allowed 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 25472 of 2015Decided on : 05.12.2015
Haryana State Industrial and InfrastructureDevelopment Corporation Limited
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula
. . . Petitioner
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, is for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari forquashing the impugned letter dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) rejecting theprayer of the petitioner for keeping the penalty proceedings, under Section271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), in abeyancetill the disposal of the appeal under Section 253 of the Act, which has beenpreferred by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (inshort 'ITAT').
2.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitionerstates that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition withliberty to the petitioner to file an application before the appropriateauthority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition3.Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to thepetitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to it inaccordance with law.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
December 05, 2015J.Ram
(RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE
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.