Case Law › High Court › Ita/133/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/133/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal v. K.k. Singh Chouhan (Huf)

High Court 10 Feb 2020 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · mphc_db_jbp

Parties

Date of order

10 Feb 2020

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/133/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal v. K.k. Singh Chouhan (Huf), the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty asprayed for.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshITA-133-2014 (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPALVs K.K. SINGH CHOUHAN (HUF)) [10][-][02][-][2020]Jabalpur, Dated : Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the taxeffect involved is Rs.2,20,972/-, he has instructions to withdraw the presentappeal in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 issued by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CentralBoard of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), New Delhi. However, he prayed thatliberty be granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal, in case something survives therein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty asprayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by theRevenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal onmerits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the Revenue is being left open tobe adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)CHIEF JUSTICEJUDGE C

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.