Case LawHigh Court › Subhash Chander v. Commissioner Of Incom...

Subhash Chander v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda

High Court 02 Dec 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Subhash Chander v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda
Date of order
02 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Subhash Chander v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 668 of 2009 ( O&M )DATE OF DECISION : 02.12.2009 Subhash Chander Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda .... APPELLANT ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate,for the appellant-assessee.* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the orderdated 11.9.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AmritsarBench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No. 344(Asr)/2009, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07, whereby after settingaside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda,deleting the penalty, the matter has been remanded. After arguing for some time, counsel for the appellant-assesseestates that the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal withliberty to make his submissions before the Assessing Officer. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE December 02, 2009 ndj ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR )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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan