Case Law › High Court › M/S N.m. Mechantiles Limited v. Tejinder...

M/S N.m. Mechantiles Limited v. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.(Oral

High Court 25 Apr 2022 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

25 Apr 2022

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S N.m. Mechantiles Limited v. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.(Oral, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: In light of such stand taken, the instant appeal is dismissed in view of judgment passed in M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited'scase (supra).

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-459-2019 (O&M)Date of decision: 25.04.2022 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant M/s N.M. Mechantiles Limited Versus ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel assisted by Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.(ORAL) Ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant has at the veryoutset fairly conceded that the issue involved in the instant appeal would becovered against the revenue in the light of Division Bench judgment passedby this Court in ITA-322-2016 (titled as 'Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Chandigarh vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech PrivateLimited, Chandigarh'), decided on 28[th] of August, 2018. In light of such stand taken, the instant appeal is dismissed in view of judgment passed in M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited'scase (supra). (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE April 25, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Dpr Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/NoWhether reportable:Yes/No

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.