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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/485/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119359201808 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in light of the concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.' (2010) 2 SCC 723. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The reasoning is based solely on the admission by the revenue that the case is covered by a higher judicial precedent. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the concession. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, against M/s Micro Turners. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action, the nature of which is not detailed. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this appeal by the revenue.

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. The revenue, through its learned counsel, contended that the present appeal is covered by the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent (assessee).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-485-2018 (O&M) 101 (2nd Case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-485-2018 (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 →