Case Law › High Court › Ita/103/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Ita/103/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Panchkula v. M/S G.b.s. Education Society, Yamuna Nagar

High Court 06 Apr 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

06 Apr 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/103/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Panchkula v. M/S G.b.s. Education Society, Yamuna Nagar, the High Court (2016) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA No. 103 of 2012 (O&M)Date of decision: 06.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, PanchkulaVs, M/s GBS Education Society Appellant.Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate andMr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate|for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J(QRAL) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the taxeffect involved in the present case isL16,14,000/-, he has instructions towithdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, ?DDismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is,however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as Claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE 06.04.2016smriti (RAJ RAHUL GARG)JUDGE

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.