Case LawHigh Court › Ita/237/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Ita/237/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Asr v. M/Ssachdev And Sons

High Court 11 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/237/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Asr v. M/Ssachdev And Sons
Date of order
11 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/237/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Asr v. M/Ssachdev And Sons, 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.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA No. 237 of 2003 (O&M) -|- IN THERE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 237 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar ....... Appellant *"+%,% M/s Sachdeva and Sons (KOU) ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate|for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated30.6.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench,Amritsar, in ITA No. 55(ASR)/2002, for the assessment year 1998-99)raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there isno transfer within the meaning section 45(4) read withsection 2(47) of the Act, whereas section 45(4) includetransfer of capital asset by the firm otherwise than on itsdissolution and also when section 2(47) is fullyapplicable in this case? ITA No. 237 of 2003 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview oft circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as thetax effect involved is less thanLy20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 11.05.2016T@eIN (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan