The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Anju Tayal
High Court
10 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Anju Tayal
Date of order
10 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Anju Tayal, 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITA No.540 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
ITA No.540 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: February 10, 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad
...Appellant
Versus
Anju Tayal
...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
Present :.Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocatefor the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocatefor the respondent.
'''''
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)CM No.26869;CI]F2015
This is an application filed under Section 260A(7) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908praying that the appeal be dismissed in view of circular No.21 dated10.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. Copy ofwhich has been annexed as Annexure R-l. The tax effect involved 1s416,27,559/- which is less than the monetary limit prescribed thereunder.Notice of this application was issued to counsel for the appellant. Learnedcounsel for the appellant does not dispute that the tax effect is less than=20)lacs and prays for withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, CM_ standsdisposed of,
Main case
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main
appeal is taken up for hearing today,
ITA No.540 of 2010
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect involved is =16,27,559/- he has instructions to withdraw thepresent appeal in view of the circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issuedby the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted tothe revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein|
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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
February 10, 2016Dinesh Bansal
(RAJ RAHUL GARGJUDGE
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.