PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHAMAN ACRYLIC LIMITED CHANDIGARH ROAD LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/162/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110349201624 February 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated February 24, 2026, decided the appeal ITA-162-2016 (O&M) by referring to a detailed order passed on the same date in a connected appeal, ITA-107-2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited'. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for ITA-162-2016 are not elaborated upon in this judgment. The operative directions, such as remand or deletion, are also not detailed here, as they are presumed to be contained within the referenced order of the companion case. Any pending applications related to this appeal were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

This judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerns an appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (appellant) against M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited (respondent-assessee). The appeal, numbered ITA-162-2016 (O&M), was decided on February 24, 2026. The court's decision in this case was based on a detailed order passed on the same date in a related appeal, ITA-107-2016, also titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited'. No specific assessment years, amounts in dispute, or the procedural history leading to the appeal before the High Court are detailed in this particular judgment excerpt. The judgment simply refers to the order in the companion case for the detailed reasoning.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law or fact that the High Court had to decide in ITA-162-2016. It also does not record the arguments presented by either the appellant (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax) or the respondent-assessee (M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited). The court's decision is entirely predicated on the detailed order passed in a connected appeal, ITA-107-2016. Therefore, the specific contentions, reliance on authorities, circulars, or precedents by each party are not discernible from this excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

202-3

ITA-162-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2026

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

...Appellant Versus

M/S VARDHAMAN ACRYLIC LIMITED

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:- Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vidhul Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant-Income Tax

Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate

for respondent-assessee

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

For orders, see detailed order of even date passed in ITA-107-2016 titled as ‘Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited’. 2.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE

February 24, 2026 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable:

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.25 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →