Skyline Engineering Contract (India) Pvt.ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii
High Court
22 Nov 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Skyline Engineering Contract (India) Pvt.ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii
Date of order
22 Nov 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Skyline Engineering Contract (India) Pvt.ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 361/2016
SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.... Appellant Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Rohit Kr. Gupta and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
%
O R D E R22.11.2016
The question of law sought to be urged in this case is “whether the order of remand by the ITAT was in the circumstances justified.” This Court is of the opinion that no such question can be framed under Section 268 having regard to the circumstances of the case. At the same time, we clarify that the Assessing Officer shall proceed to decide the matter remitted uninfluenced by the observations of the ITAT.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 /vikas/
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
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.