2017 (4) TMI 1588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain, to which one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher J. was a party. Revenue has brought to our notice the fact that in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain, it was observed albeit, based on information furnished to said Bench by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. M. Swaminathan For the Respondent : Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar ORDER (RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.) 1.This is an appeal, filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, by the Revenue, to assail the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.08.2016. 2.Learned counsel for the Revenue says, that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by the judgment of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, this fact was overlooked. 4.It is, however, conceded by the learned counsel for the Revenue that this aspect will not impact the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of : Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain. 5.Having regard to what is submitted before us, by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the appeal is dismiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X