The Commissioner Of Incometax-Faridabad v. Sh. Yashbir Singh, Huf
High Court
03 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Incometax-Faridabad v. Sh. Yashbir Singh, Huf
Date of order
03 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Incometax-Faridabad v. Sh. Yashbir Singh, Huf, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, this appeal is without any merit andthe same is dismissed.
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.583 of 2007
Date of decision: 3.4.2008
The Commissioner of IncomeTax-Faridabad
Versus
......Appellant
Sh. Yashbir Singh, HUF, s/o Sh. NarainSingh, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh,Faridabad
......Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J .
1.The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) againstthe order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench 'I', in ITA No.2763/Del/2005 for the assessment year 2002-03raising the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that if the litigationwas pending before a Court and had not attained finality,interest would not accrue and could be subjected to taxonly when it was finally determined?”
2.The appeals of the revenue raising the similar question of lawas raised in this appeal have already been dismissed by this Court videjudgement dated 26.3.2008 passed in ITA No.490 of 2007 and other
connected matters.
3.In the light of the above fact, no substantial question of lawsurvives for our consideration in this appeal and accordingly, we decline toentertain the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is without any merit andthe same is dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
3.4. 2008ps
(SATISH 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.