PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 LUDH vs. M/S NAHAR SPINNING MILLS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/290/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110491201619 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Limited. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The dispute involved a tax effect of ₹45,10,923/-. The appeal was decided on July 19, 2018, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide whether to dismiss or allow the appeal filed by the revenue. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being ₹45,10,923/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. No specific arguments were recorded from the respondent's side.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 290 of 2016 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Limited . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 45,10,923/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.23 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →