Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Ludhi...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Ludhiana v. M/S Munjal Sales Corporation, Ludhiana

High Court 09 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Ludhiana v. M/S Munjal Sales Corporation, Ludhiana
Date of order
09 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii, Ludhiana v. M/S Munjal Sales Corporation, Ludhiana, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.652 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax II, Ludhiana Vs. -----Appellant M/s Munjal Sales Corporation, Ludhiana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr.Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench‘B’, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.557/Chandi/2007 dated22.11.2007, in respect of assessment year 2001-02, proposing toraise following substantial question of law:- “Whether both on the facts and in law, the ITATwas legally justified in deleting the addition madeby the Assessing Officer in response to order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (C ), Ludhiana under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961?” 2.The Commissioner set aside assessment, exercising its powers under section 263 of the Act. The said order of theCommissioner was set aside by the Tribunal on 28.2.2007. As aconsequence of the above, fresh assessment made by the AssessingOfficer has been set aside. 3.It is not disputed that the earlier order of the Tribunaldated 28.2.2007 was affirmed by this Court vide order dated13.12.2007 in ITA No.395 of 2007. 4.In view of above, we are unable to hold that anysubstantial question of law arises. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge December 9, 2008‘gs’ (L.N.Mittal)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