The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Lax-2, Chandigarn v. Lakhwinder Singh Panag
High Court
29 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Lax-2, Chandigarn v. Lakhwinder Singh Panag
Date of order
29 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Lax-2, Chandigarn v. Lakhwinder Singh Panag, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR926 (SC)', where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal without going intothe merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leaving the question of law open, thepresent appeal 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 HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
105
ITA No.403 of 2018 (O&M)Decided on : 29.03.2019!
The Pr. Commissioner of Income lax-2, Chandigarn
Versus
... Appellant
Lakhwinder Singh Panag.
... Respondent
CORAMN:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present:Ms. Urvasni Dnugga, sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant-Revenue.
++++
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
A perusal of the record shows that the tax effect Involved in thepresent case Is 41,48,9383/-. In view of the order of the Apex Court In‘Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR926 (SC)', where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal without going intothe merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leaving the question of law open, thepresent appeal is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the appealshall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE
March 29, 2019sonia gugnanl
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:Whether Reportable:
Yes/NoYes/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.
EaseValue