The Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana
High Court
30 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana
Date of order
30 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana, the High Court (2016) allowed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 427 of 2015 (O&M) Decided on : 30.03.2016
The Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Limited
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana
. . . Appellant
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG
PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocatefor the appellant-assessee.
Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the respondent-revenue.****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The appellant-assessee has approached this Court under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), impugning the orderdated 5[th] June, 2015 (Annexure A-6), passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') inMA No. 32/CHD/2014 in ITA No. 526/CHD/2013, relating to theAssessment Year 2009-10.
2.The primary grievance of the appellant-assessee was that theTribunal on an application filed under Section 254 of the Act, has recalled itsearlier order dated 25[th] February, 2014. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee states that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal, as thematter is still pending for final adjudication before the Tribunal. He hasfurther stated that he has no objection to the order dated 5[th] June, 2015,passed by the tribunal, whereby, the order dated 25[th] February, 2014 wasrecalled and prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal.
3.Dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
March 30, 2016
(RAJ RAHUL GARG) 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.