Ita/271/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Baba Teja Singh Radha Swami Satsung Trust, Amritsar (
High Court
28 May 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/271/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Baba Teja Singh Radha Swami Satsung Trust, Amritsar (
Date of order
28 May 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/271/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Baba Teja Singh Radha Swami Satsung Trust, Amritsar (, 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. 271 of2018Decided on : 28.05.2079
THECOMMISSIONEROF|INCOMETAX|(EXEMPTIONS),CHANDIGARH... Appellant(s)Versus
WS RAJPURA [IMPROVEMENT TRUST |
... Respondent(s)
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAINHONBLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant.
FE FE
RAKESHKUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant states that since the tax effectinvolved isa49,46,671/-, he has the instructions to withdraw the present appealin view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the}C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he has prayed that liberty may be granted to therevenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something|survives therein.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by therevenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits.Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be|adjudicated in an appropriate case.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN),JUDGE|
May 28, 2019
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)JUDGE.Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Ess Kay
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.