Ita/380/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon (
High Court
29 Jan 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/380/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon (
Date of order
29 Jan 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/380/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon (, the High Court (2020) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
2()1
ITA-380-2018(0&M)Date of decision :29.1.2020
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh
...... Appellant
VeTSUS
M/s. National Horticulture Board
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present ;Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing counselfor the appellant.
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocatefor the respondents,
///
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
1]Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the taxeffect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read withLetter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he _ hainstructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that libertybe granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal, in case something survives therein.
|Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.3,Since the main case has been dismissed as withdrawn, the pendingC.M, if any also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARITJUDGE
29.1.2020anuradha
(AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasonedWhether 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.