Case LawHigh Court › M/S Hi-Tech Food … v. Commissioner Of In...

M/S Hi-Tech Food … v. Commissioner Of Income Tax …

High Court 16 Jun 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cmis
Parties
M/S Hi-Tech Food … v. Commissioner Of Income Tax …
Date of order
16 Jun 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In M/S Hi-Tech Food … v. Commissioner Of Income Tax …, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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 HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 12 of 2014 Date of decision: 16.06.2014 M/s Hi-Tech Food …..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Dalip K Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (oral) OMP(M) No. 12 of 2014 The applicant-appellant has laid this motion for condonation of sixty eight days delay, which has crept–in in filing the appeal. 2. We have gone through the appeal as well as the limitation petition and are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has carved out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Thus, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 3. Appeal is taken on Board. Registry is directed to diarize the same. Issue notice. Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. At this stage, Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, learned counsel for the respondent stated at the Bar that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment, dated 27[th] June, 2013, delivered by this Court in ITA No. 4001 of 2013, titled, M/s Pooja Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. His statement is taken on record. 5. Since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The judgment referred to above, shall form part of this judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) Acting Chief Justice June 16, 2014 (vt) ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan