PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/411/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104140201920 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appeal. The operative part of the judgment states, "The appeal is allowed. For order see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order of even date passed in ITA No. 408 of 2019 – Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, Chandigarh versus Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh." This indicates that the detailed reasoning and the specific findings on the issues are contained within the order for ITA No. 408 of 2019. The judgment itself does not elaborate on the specific grounds for allowing the appeal or the ratio decidendi. Therefore, the specific findings on the issues, the reasoning, and the ratio are not available in this excerpt. No specific relief granted or issue left undecided is mentioned here.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Punjab Infrastructure Development Board (PIDB) against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh. The specific assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). The procedural history indicates that the appeal was reserved on November 11, 2024, and pronounced on November 20, 2024. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is the forum hearing the appeal. The judgment refers to a separate order passed in ITA No. 408 of 2019, which also involved the same parties and subject matter.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly list the questions the Tribunal had to decide. However, based on the "Whether speaking/reasoned" and "Whether reportable" fields, it can be inferred that the primary issue was whether the speaking/reasoned order and the reportable nature of the decision were relevant considerations. The appellant, Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, was represented by Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate. The respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh, was represented by Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by each side regarding the substantive issues of the appeal, beyond the procedural questions implied by the 'Yes/No' fields.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN T

Punjab Infras

Commissione

CORAM: H

Present:

SANJEEV P

in a separate Infrastructur Income Tax (

20.11.2024 vs

Whether spea Whether repo

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

IT Date of Pro structure Development Board, C

versus er of Income Tax (TDS), Chandi HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocat Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Senior St Department. PRAKASH SHARMA, J. The appeal is allowed. For order e order of even date passed in I re Development Board, Chand (TDS), Chandigarh.

(SANJ

aking/reasoned

Yes/N ortable

Yes/N

JAB AND HARYANA ARH TA No. 411 of 2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 11.11.2024 onouncement : 20.11.2024 handigarh … Appellant igarh … Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH te, for the appellant. tanding counsel for Income Tax rs, see detailed reasons recorded ITA No. 408 of 2019 – Punjab digarh versus Commissioner of JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

JUDGE SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE No No

d b f VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.22 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →