Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandiga...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd

High Court 17 May 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd
Date of order
17 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2016) 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 AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 27 of 2001Decided on : 17.05.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh Versus M/s Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. . . . Appellant . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant-revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has produced thecommunication dated 30/31.03.2016 and a short affidavit of Saroj Deswal,Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh, stating therein thatthe tax effect involved in the present appeal is `2,59,827/-. 2.It was submitted that since the tax effect involved in the presentappeal is less than ` 20 lacs, the monetary limit prescribed by the C.B.D.T,New Delhi, vide circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, therefore, she hasinstructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, she prayed thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein. 3.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 May 17, 2016 J.Ram (RAJ RAHUL GARG) 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