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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Gaje Singh

High Court 28 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Gaje Singh
Date of order
28 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Gaje Singh, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA No.380 of 2008Date of decision: 28.8.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Gaje Singh -----Appellant -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. ----JUDGMENT: The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 5.6.2007 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I’, New Delhi in ITANo.4728/DEL/2005 for the assessment year 1998-99. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that against theorder passed in connected matter involving identical issue, appeal of therevenue has been dismissed by this Court on 15.7.2008 being ITA No.333of 2008 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Gaje Singh). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge August 28, 2008‘gs’ (Ajay Tewari)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