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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/216/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110409201624 February 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court has not rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal in this specific order. Instead, it has stated that for orders, reference should be made to the detailed order passed on the same date in ITA-107-2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited'. This implies that the outcome of the present appeal is directly linked to and will follow the decision in the aforementioned related appeal. Any pending applications have also been disposed of in conjunction with the main order.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited. The judgment is dated February 24, 2026. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Justices Jagmohan Bansal and Amarinder Singh Grewal, is hearing the appeal. The present order refers to 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 nature of the dispute are detailed in this particular order.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly state the specific issues that the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by the assessee and the revenue. The order is a procedural one, indicating that the decision in this appeal is contingent upon the decision in a related appeal, ITA-107-2016. Therefore, the specific questions of law or fact, the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the authorities or precedents relied upon by either party are not discernible from this judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

202-4

ITA-216-2016 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 →