The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad
High Court
05 Dec 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad
Date of order
05 Dec 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
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
ITA No. 20 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 5.12.2015
The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh
....Appellant.
Versus
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad
...Respondent.
1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.
PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
For orders, see ITA No. 18 of 2010 (The Commissioner of
Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh v. General Manager, Haryana
Roadways, Hisar).
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
December 5, 2015
gbs
(RAMENDRA JAIN)
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.
EaseValue