Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals
High Court
24 Mar 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals
Date of order
24 Mar 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: Statement is accepted, CWP-19729-2021 (O&M) In view of the above, instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly, (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)JUDGE 24.03.2022 harjeet (PANKAJ JAIN)JUDGE 1) Whether speaking/reasoned?
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
CWP-19729-2021 (O&M)Date of Decision:24.03.2022
Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd.
_.. Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)
... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TRJINDER SINGH DHINDSAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN.
Present: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent,
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (QRAL).
This case has been taken up through Video Conferencingvia Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and asper instructions.
Instant petition was filed seeking a mandamus for directingthe respondent to finally conclude and for disposal of the appeal filedby the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961pertaining to the year 2016-17.
Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent makes astatement that he has instructions that the appeal in question would befinally decided on merits within a period of four weeks from today.
Statement is accepted,
CWP-19729-2021 (O&M)
In view of the above, instant petition has been rendered
infructuous and is disposed of accordingly,
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)JUDGE
24.03.2022
harjeet
(PANKAJ JAIN)JUDGE
1) Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
11)Whether reportable?
Yes/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.