Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludh...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. Dr. R.l. Narang

High Court 25 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

25 Jan 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. Dr. R.l. Narang, 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. 672 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 25.01.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana Versus Dr. R.L. Narang . . . Appellant . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant-revenue. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocatefor the respondent-assessee. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the tax effectinvolved in the present case is ` 8,57,874-. He submitted that keeping in viewthe circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi,the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives therein. 2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriatecase. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 25, 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.