Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh
High Court
15 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh
Date of order
15 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed, in terms ofthe judgment and order dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017.
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 AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No.184 of 2018(O&M)Date of Decision °:15.12.201
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula
..--- Appellant
Versus
Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh
eee RESpOndent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE
Present ;Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the applicant/respondent.
KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE(Oral)
It is stated that the issue being raised herein stands answered bythe Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 14.11.2017, renderedin ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PatialaVs. State Bank of Patiala), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble ApexCourt by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24323 of2018, vide judgment and order dated 8.11.2018.
In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed, in terms ofthe judgment and order dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017.
(KRISHNA MURARIT
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ARUN PALLI)JUDGE
15.12 2018Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable
Yes/NoYes/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.