Case Law › High Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkul...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Mr. Subodh Parkash

High Court 04 Sep 2019 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

04 Sep 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Mr. Subodh Parkash, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH. 1240 ITA No. 355 of 2016 (O&M)Date of Decision : 04.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ... Appellant Versus Mr. Subodh Parkash ....Respondent CQOQRAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J.(ORAL) 1.Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetaxeffect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read withLetter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he _ hainstructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that libertybe granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal, in case something survives therein. ?)Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. ITA No. 355 of 2016 (O&M) 3)Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M.,application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARIT )JUDGE 04.09.2019pooja sain Whether speaking/reasoned?Whether reportable? ( HARNARESH SINGH GILL )JUDGEVes/NoVes/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.