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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Amar Electronics, Patiala

High Court 28 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

28 Jan 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Amar Electronics, Patiala, 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. 740 of 2010 (O&M)Decided on : 28.01.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. Versus M/s Amar Electronics, Patiala ... Appellant ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITIALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG PRESENT: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate &Mr. Madhur Sharma, Advocatefor the respondent. ++++ AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is|411,82,815/-, he 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, he 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to therevenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein. 2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 appropriate Case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE January 28, 2016 smriti (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.