PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/52/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051908202015 February 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) that he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect in the matter was only Rs. 2,78,633/-. A list of cases received by the appellant-department was also taken on record, subject to just exceptions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn, along with any pending applications. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order dated January 22, 2020.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated January 22, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2014-15 and concerned M/s Haryana Warehousing Corp. The appeal was listed for hearing. The appellant's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the matter was Rs. 2,78,633/-. A list of cases received by the appellant-department was also placed on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be withdrawn by the appellant-department, considering the tax effect and other circumstances. The appellant's contention was that they wished to withdraw the appeal, citing the tax effect of Rs. 2,78,633/- and a list of cases received by the department. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent (M/s Haryana Warehousing Corp.) regarding the merits of the case or the withdrawal request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN T (203) PR. COMM M/S HARY CORAM:

Present:

LISA GILL

1.

Tax Act 196 Income Tax ITA No. 289 2. instructions Reference is the appellan exceptions. 3. dismissed as

15.02.2025 Parul

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Versus

YANA WAREHOUSING CORP HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE L HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AL

**** Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Seinor St for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advo Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate f

**** L, J. (Oral) Prayer in this appeal filed unde 61, is for setting aside order date x Appellate Tribunal, Chandig 9/CHD/2019 for the assessment Learned counsel for the appell to withdraw this appeal as the t s made to the list of cases receiv nt-Department. Copy thereof is Appeal along with pending s withdrawn.

Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable:- AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-52-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 15.02.2025 , PANCHKULA ……Appellant ORATION ……Respondent LISA GILL LOK JAIN tanding Counsel ocate with e and for the respondent.

er Section 260-A of the Income ed 22.01.2020 passed by learned arh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh in year 2014-15. lant submits that he has specific tax effect is only Rs. 2,78,633/-. ved by him on 29.07.2024 from taken on record, subject to just g applications is accordingly (LISA GILL) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE ed:- Yes/No Yes/No

) 5

e d n c . m t y PARUL 2025.02.18 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →