Rana And Company v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others
High Court
22 Dec 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Rana And Company v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others
Date of order
22 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Rana And Company v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Even otherwise,question whether the assessment takes place at Chandigarh or Mohaliis not a question which can have any serious prejudice to the rights ofthe petitioner, which may call for interference under Article 226 of theConstitution.
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 ATCHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.21440 of 2008Date of decision: 22.12.2008
Rana and Company.
Vs.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others.
-----Petitioner
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the petitioner.-----
ORDER:
This petition seeks quashing of order of the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Annexure P-8, dated 19.11.2008determining the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee to be withRange-I, Chandigarh, which has the territorial jurisdiction over Nangal.
The petitioner made an application to the effect that casefile of the petitioner for the assessment proceedings be transferred fromRange-I, Chandigarh to Range-VI, Mohali as the petitioner had shiftedhis principal place of business from Nangal to Mohali. After inquiry, itwas held by the Chief Commissioner that the facts stated by thepetitioner were not correct and accordingly, the jurisdiction was held tobe with Range-I, Chandigarh.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned orderdetermining jurisdiction to Range-I, Chandigarh. Even otherwise,question whether the assessment takes place at Chandigarh or Mohaliis not a question which can have any serious prejudice to the rights ofthe petitioner, which may call for interference under Article 226 of theConstitution.
Dismissed.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )JUDGE
December 22, 2008ashwani
( L. N. MITTAL )
JUDGE
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.