Case Law › High Court › Ita/216/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/216/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt Pamila Syal

High Court 05 Nov 2019 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

05 Nov 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/216/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt Pamila Syal, the High Court (2019) 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.216 of 1999Date of decision : 05.11.2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh. ...... Appellant VerTSU Pamila Syal ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICEALKA SARIN +++ Present :Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocatefor the appellant. None for the respondent. +++ AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inLearned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that sincethe tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed inCircular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.l7 of 2019 datedOS.O08.2019 read with Letter No.E.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However,he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file anapplication for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein.2 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.3Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M.Application, if any, also stands disposed of. | (AJAY TEWARITJUDGE 05.11.2019 ranid Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable | ( ALKA SARIN0JUDGE Yes/NoYes/No

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.