PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S V.K. SOOD ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR, DDS JV, UNIT III PANCHKULA

ITA/50/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01003633202316 January 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN1 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was only Rs. 2,847/- and that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as such. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (Revenue) against an order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench “B”, Chandigarh in ITA No. 737/CHD/2016. The assessee is M/s V.K. Sood Engineer and Contractor, Panchkula. The Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's order. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the tax effect is only Rs. 2,847/-? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side regarding the merits of the appeal. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submits that as the tax effect is only Rs. 2,847/-, they have instructions to withdraw this appeal in view of circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

246

IN T Pr. Commis M/s V.K. So CORAM:

Present:

LISA GILL

Income Tax learned Inco in ITA No.7 2. only Rs.2,7 circular No Department 3. 4.

January 16 manju Whether speakin Whether Reporta THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR ssioner of Income Tax, Panchkul Versus

ood Engineer and Contractor, Pa HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LIS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALO

**** Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Stand for the appellant.

**** L, J. (Oral) Present appeal has been file x Act, 1961 challenging order ome Tax Appellate Tribunal, D 737/CHD/2016. Learned counsel for appellant 2,847/- he has instructions to w .9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 i of Revenue, CBDT, Governmen Appeal is, accordingly, dismiss Pending application(s), if any, s

6, 2025. ng/reasoned:- Yes/No able:-

Yes/No AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-50-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-16.01.2025 la ……Appellant anchkula ……Respondent SA GILL OK JAIN ding Counsel (through VC) d under Section 260A of the r dated 18.08.2022 passed by Division Bench “B”, Chandigarh submits that as the tax effect is withdraw this appeal in view of issued by Ministry of Finance, nt of India . sed as withdrawn. stand disposed of as well.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

t t e y h s f , Manju 2025.01.18 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →