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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. Shri Karanbir Singh, Patiala

High Court 18 Nov 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. Shri Karanbir Singh, Patiala
Date of order
18 Nov 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. Shri Karanbir Singh, Patiala, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.

Issue: Savita Saxena, Advocatefor the appellant.None for the respondent RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench, Chandigarh, has referred the following question of law,for an answer:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was right in law in...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Income Tax Reference No.20 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income Tax Reference No.20 of 1999 Date of Order: 18.11.2013. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus Shri Karanbir Singh, Patiala ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocatefor the appellant.None for the respondent RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench, Chandigarh, has referred the following question of law,for an answer:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was right in law in holdingthat the amount enhanced compensation andinterest thereon received by the assessee inconsequence of the judgment of the Distt. Judgeand the amount having been utilised, invested indiscretion of the assessee, is not taxable?”Counsel for the revenue fairly concedes that question Income Tax Reference No.20 of 1999 of law has already been answered against the revenue inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Karanbir Singh, [2008] 303 ITR 231 (P&H). In view of the statement made by counsel for therevenue, the reference is answered in terms of the aforesaidjudgment. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE November 18, 2013 nt (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) 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