THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ROHTAK vs. M/S MICRO TURNERS. HISAR ROAD ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/249/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117446201708 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the revenue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue's counsel. As the appeal was covered by the apex court's decision, the High Court found no reason to proceed further with the appeal on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (the revenue) against M/s Micro Turners, Hisar Road, Rohtak (the assessee). The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action, the nature of which is not detailed. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this appeal before the High Court. The amount in dispute is not stated. The judgment records that the revenue's counsel conceded that the appeal was covered by a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal filed by the revenue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue fairly contended that this appeal is covered against the appellant through a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in ‘CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ (2010) 2 SCC 723.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-249-2017 (O&M) 101 (1st Case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-249-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.09.2026 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...Petitioner Versus M/s Micro Turners, Hisar Road, Rohtak ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant(s) (through V.C.). Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)-revenue fairly contends that this appeal is covered against the appellant through a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in ‘CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.’ (2010) 2 SCC 723. 2. In the light of above, present appeal is dismissed. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 08.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.10 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →