Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. M/S Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.ludhiana

High Court 03 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. M/S Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.ludhiana
Date of order
03 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. M/S Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.ludhiana, the High Court (2008) 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 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.C.No.19 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER M/s Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT I.T.C.No.35 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala .....PETITIONERVersus M/s Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT I.T.C.No.47 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER Shri Varinder Kumar Malik Prop.M/s Arvind Tools & Traders, Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT I.T.C.No.50 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER M/s R.K.Goel & Sons (HUF), Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER Shri S.C.Garg (HUF) Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT I.T.C.No.53 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER M/s A.K.Steels, Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT I.T.C.No.54 of 1989 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER Shri Shanti Sarup Chopra, Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus .....PETITIONER M/s Central Machinery Co.(P) Ltd.Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 03, 2008 CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG--- Present:Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate,for the revenue. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate,for the assessee... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of ITC Nos.19,35,47,50,52,53,54 of1989 and 76 of 1995. During the course of arguments, Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, learnedcounsel for the revenue states that in all these cases pure questions of factsare involved and no referable substantial question of law arises from theimpugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafterreferred to as `the Tribunal'). In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the revenue, all thesecases are dismissed as no referable substantial question of law is arisingout of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan