Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal
High Court
12 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal
Date of order
12 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015]373 ITR 526 (SC)', where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appealwithout going into the merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leavingthe question of law open, the present appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
ITA-371-2018 (O&M)Decided on: 12.03.2019
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh
.... Appellant
Vs
Ramesh Chander Aggarwal
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant,
>K K
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL_J (ORAL)
A perusal of the record shows that the tax effect involved inthe present case is"=1,49,597/-. In view of the order of the Apex Courtin 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015]373 ITR 526 (SC)', where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appealwithout going into the merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leavingthe question of law open, the present appeal is dismissed. It is, however,clarified that dismissal of the appeal shall not be taken to be affirmationof order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed bythe revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE
12.03.2019
DineshWhether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether ReportableYes/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.
EaseValue