The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chandigarh v. The District Manager, Punjab State Grains Procurement Corp.ltd., Ropar
High Court
06 Sep 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chandigarh v. The District Manager, Punjab State Grains Procurement Corp.ltd., Ropar
Date of order
06 Sep 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds)-1, Chandigarh v. The District Manager, Punjab State Grains Procurement Corp.ltd., Ropar, the High Court (2019) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
[TA-264-2018
Date of decision: 06.09.2019
The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-1, Chandigarh
.... Appellant
Versus
The District Manager, Punjab State Grains Procurement Corp.Ltd., Ropar
.-- Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant,for the appellant,
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Mr. Divya Suri &
Mr. Gaurav Singh Bisht, Advocatesfor the respondents.for the respondents.
$$$$
AJAY TEWARI_J (ORAL)
1]Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that sincethe tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed inCircular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.l7 of 2019 datedO08O8.2019 read with Letter No. KE.No 279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dat20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal.However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file anapplication for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein.?DDismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(AJAY TEWARI )|JUDGE.
( HARNARESH SINGH GILL )06.09.2019JUDGE
DineshWhether speaking/reasonedYes/No.Whether ReportableYes/No |
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.