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
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.