Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Devesh Kumar
High Court
05 Sep 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Devesh Kumar
Date of order
05 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Devesh Kumar, the High Court (2018) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA-184-2015
Date of Decision: 5.9.2018
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
Versus
...Appellant.
Shri Devesh Kumar
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.Affidavit dated 4.9.2018 of respondent filed in Court today istaken on record. As per the affidavit, tax effect in this case is ` 33,32,900/-which is not controverted by the learned counsel for the revenue.
2.In view thereof, learned counsel for the appellant-revenuestates that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view ofCircular No.03/2018, dated 11[th] July, 2018, issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has prayed that liberty be granted tothe revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein.
3.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is,however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
September 5, 2018gbs
(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE
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.