Ita/193/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. State Bank Of Patiala
High Court
22 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/193/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. State Bank Of Patiala
Date of order
22 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/193/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. State Bank Of Patiala, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
CM No. 11695-CIlI of 2017 in/anITA No. 193 of 2017 (O&M)1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH.
CM No. 11695-CIlI of 2017 in/anITA No. 193 of 2017 (O&M)Date of Decision : 22.05.2017
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala
...Appellant
4).+5+
State Bank of Patiala
...Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:Mr. Z.S. Klar, Advocate for the appellant,
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocatefor the respondent.
*K
S.J. VAZIF DAR, C.J.(Oral
CM No. 1169&CHT of 2017
Application is allowed and documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3
are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
ITA No. 193 of2017
This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh in respect of assessment year 2010-
2011.
It is admitted that the question of law raised in this appeal iscovered against the appellant/department and in tavour of the
assessee/respondent by the judgment of this Court, dated 27.02.2017(Annexure R-2) in the case of these very parties in ITA No. 270 of 2016.
The question of law is, therefore, decided against the appellant,
Mr. Klar, learned counsel for the appellant states that theappellant has challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR)CHIEF JUSTICE
22.05.2017kanchan
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)JUDGE.
Whether speaking/reasoned?Whether reportable?
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.