Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar and another
[Citation -2020-LL-0206-29]

Citation 2020-LL-0206-29
Appellant Name Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF)
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar and another
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/02/2020
Assessment Year 1989-90
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags low tax effect
Bot Summary: AJAY TEWARI, J. 1 These two appeals have been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in ITA No.234(ASR)/1993 and MA No.19(ASR)/2000 in ITA No.734(ASR)/1993 for the assessment year 1989-90 respectively. 2 The issue involved in both the appeals relates to demand of 33,010/-. 3 Considering the trivial nature of impact, we do not deem it PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH ITA No.99 of 2001 2 appropriate to decide the appeals and the same are dismissed, leaving the questions of law to be decided in some other case. 5 Since the appeals are dismissed, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH.


ITA No.99 of 2001 {1} 414-1 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.02.2020 1. ITA No.99 of 2001 Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents 2. ITA No.100 of 2001 Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. With Mr. Varun Issar, Jr. Standing Counsel. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] These two appeals have been filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in ITA No.234(ASR)/1993 and MA No.19(ASR)/2000 in ITA No.734(ASR)/1993 for assessment year 1989-90 respectively. [2] issue involved in both appeals relates to demand of 33,010/-. [3] Considering trivial nature of impact, we do not deem it PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:33 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH ITA No.99 of 2001 {2} appropriate to decide appeals and same are, therefore, dismissed, leaving questions of law to be decided in some other case. [4] Ordered accordingly. [5] Since appeals are dismissed, pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 06, 2020 pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:33 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar and another
Report Error