Iapl/225/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
High Court
13 Sep 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisdb_16012018
Parties
Iapl/225/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
Date of order
13 Sep 2021
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Iapl/225/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, the High Court (2021) dismissed 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
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 225 of 2009
Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherRespondent :- Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.C. I.T.,Praveen KumarCounsel for Respondent :- S.K. Garg,Ashish Bansal
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue and Sri
Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the assessee.
Present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated20.11.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in ITATNo. 237/Alld/2007 for the A.Y. 2004-05.
Earlier, arising from the original assessment order, matter reached theTribunal. Meanwhile, the said assessment order was subjected torevision proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Taking note of that order, the Tribunal concluded the appeal proceedingin view of the order passed under Section 263 of the Act.
At that stage, the present appeal came to be filed. However, as thingsstand today, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act has alsobeen given effect to and the petitioner- assessee has been assesed totax as per returned income.
In view of such facts, the issue being raised in the present appeal hasbeen rendered academic.
Appeal does not merit any consideration.
Dismissed.
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.