The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle V, Amritsar Andothers
High Court
07 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle V, Amritsar Andothers
Date of order
07 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle V, Amritsar Andothers, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Decision: The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3894of 2011Date of decision: 7.4.2011
The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar
...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle V, Amritsar andothers
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate for the petitioner
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
Only contention raised in this petition is that pendingconsideration of stay application by the CIT(A), the recovery ofassessed tax may not be enforced from the petitioner, who is astatutory authority. Reliance has been placed on order of this Courtdated 8.2.2011 in C.W.P. No.13613 of 2009 The AmritsarImprovement Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax& others filed by the petitioner itself.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion onmerits, we direct that demand of tax raised against the petitionermay not be enforced till the decision of the stay application by theCIT(A). The draft already given by the petitioner towards the
****
disputed tax amount may be returned to the petitioner and itsaccount may be defreezed. The CIT(A) may expedite decision onthe stay application.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
April 07, 2011Pka
(Ajay Kumar 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.