Topchem (India) Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ix
High Court
18 Oct 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Topchem (India) Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ix
Date of order
18 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Topchem (India) Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ix, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~2
*
+
%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIITA 345/2016 ITA 345/2016
TOPCHEM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Advocate.
versus
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IX.. Respondent Through: Mr. P. Roychoudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel. Through: Mr. P. Roychoudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R18.10.2016
It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that an application under Section 254 for rectification of the impugned judgment has been heard and is pending orders before the Income Tax Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to approach this Court in the light of the final order made under Section 254. In case, the appellant wishes to urge any ground that has been taken in the present appeal, it is open for it to do so in such appropriate proceedings and in case such grievance subsists in the light of the rectification order.
In view of the above liberty, the appellant’s counsel seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 18, 2016 /vikas/
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.