Case Law › High Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Fa...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Achiever Builders Pvt. Ltd

High Court 10 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

10 Mar 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S Achiever Builders Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2016) 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 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 46 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 10 , 2016. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus M/s Achiever Builders Pvt. Ltd....... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVERHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocatefor the appellant. ***** MAHESH GROVER, J. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the taxeffect involved in the present case is `11,14,535/-, she has instructions towithdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, she prayed thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by therevenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal onmerits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open tobe adjudicated in an appropriate case. ( MAHESH GROVER )JUDGE March 10 , 2016. ‘om’ ( LISA GILL )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.