The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
High Court
20 Jul 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
Date of order
20 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat, the High Court (2010) 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
ITA No.92 of 2002
Date of decision: 20.7.2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak
-----Appellant
Vs.
M/s The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Krishan Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the revenue.Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the assessee.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated17.1.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’,New Delhi in ITA No.3410/Del/94 for the assessment year 1986-87,proposing to raise following substantial question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) indirecting the reduction of the disallowance made by the AOunder section 37(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961?”
In view of our order passed today in ITA No.161 of 2002 (The
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak v. The Atlas Cycle Industries
Limited, Sonepat), the question proposed has to be decided against the
revenue and in favour of the assessee. We order accordingly.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
July 20, 2010‘gs’
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) 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.