Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Civil Li...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Civil Lines, Bathinda v. Sonu Verma

High Court 16 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

16 Feb 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Civil Lines, Bathinda v. Sonu Verma, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 302 of 2009 (O&M)Decided on: 16.02.2016. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Civil Lines, Bathinda Versus sonu Verma Prop. M/s Shiva Jewellers ... Appellant ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITIALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Hooda, Advocatefor the appellant. Ms. Anna Bansal, Advocatefor the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the taxeffect involved is413,39,594/-, she has instructions to withdraw the presentappeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by theC.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, she prayed that liberty be granted to therevenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein| 2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however,clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to beaffirmation of order of the JIribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue aclaimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriateCase. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE February 16, 2016 (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.