The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Shri Om Parkash Kukreja
High Court
31 Oct 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Shri Om Parkash Kukreja
Date of order
31 Oct 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh v. Shri Om Parkash Kukreja, the High Court (2018) 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA-324-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.10.2018
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh
...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Om Parkash Kukreja
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL.
PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellanthad sought time to get instructions in regard to the tax effect involved.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that thetax effect involved in the appeal has been mentioned as ` 82,94,407/-whereas as per the instructions, the tax effect involved is ` 26,36,588/-.
3.In view of the above, she prays for withdrawal of the presentappeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11[th] July, 2018, issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, she has prayed thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein.
4.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is,however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
October 31, 2018gbsWhether Speaking/ReasonedWhether Reportable
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE
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