Ita/71/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S T T S Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd
High Court
29 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Ita/71/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S T T S Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/71/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S T T S Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M)-|-
IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.03.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II
....... Appellant
+",%-%
M/s T.T.S. Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd,
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant.
RAJESH BINDAL,J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated21.5.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), in ITA No.220/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year1999-2000, raising the following substantial question of law:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse asthe ITAT has failed to appreciate the fact that theAssessing Officer had re-opened the assessmenthaving sufficient reasons to believe that income hadescaped assessment which were recorded beforeissuing notice u/s 148 and had sufficient supportingmaterial before him?
ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of 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, she does not wish to press the present appeal,as the tax effect involved is less than |=a20 lacs. However, she praysthat liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revivalof the appeal in case something survives therein.
Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case,
(RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE
29 (23.701TEe M
(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGEH
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.