Ita/545/2017 Of Olympus Medical System India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3, Gurugram
High Court
22 Dec 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/545/2017 Of Olympus Medical System India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3, Gurugram
Date of order
22 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Remanded
Case summary
In Ita/545/2017 Of Olympus Medical System India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3, Gurugram, the High Court (2017) remanded the matter.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.T.A. No.545 of 2017 (O&M)Date of Decision: December 22, 2017
Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
...... Appellant
2"*%/%
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEK SURYA KANTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL.he
Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate, for the appellant.
Surya Kant, J(Oral)
The instant ITA is directed against the order dated 12.07.2017passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, New Delhi.Learned senior counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that sincethe Tribunal has vide the impugned order remanded the matter to the TPO/Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after|prima-facieaccepting variouscontentions raised on behalf of the appellant, he may be permitted towithdraw this appeal with liberty to raise all the contentions before theTPO/Assessing Officer,
Ordered accordingly.
We have no reason to doubt that the TPO/Assessing OfficerShall adjudicate the matter expeditiously.
CM Nos .27874 and 27879CII of 2017
In view of the order passed in main appeal, these applications
have rendered infructuous.
ISURYA KANT]JUDGE
JUDGE
December 22, 2017
mohumnae
ISUDHIR MITTAL]
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.