Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivalik Hatcheries

1. Facts of the case

In ITA 7/2000, appellant counsel Vandana Kuthiala stated that the matter was squarely covered by a coordinate Division Bench judgment dated 24 June 2008 and did not wish to press the appeal. Party names are absent from the one-page sheet; the matched court metadata identifies Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivalik Hatcheries for the same CNR, docket and date.

Source: PDF p.1

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Court recorded counsel’s statement and disposed of the appeal without reproducing the coordinate-bench judgment, its case identity, the underlying facts or the Income-tax Act question.

Source: PDF p.1

3. Judicial decision

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed on 23 September 2008. The source supplies no independent substantive ruling on the tax question.

Source: PDF p.1

4. Outcome / in whose favour

The departmental appeal ends procedurally. The taxpayer does not receive a fresh reasoned tax-law determination in this short order.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

The recorded concession must be distinguished from the missing precedent

Counsel’s statement that the matter was squarely covered explains the decision not to press ITA 7/2000. The source identifies only the coordinate-bench judgment’s date,24 June 2008. It does not state that judgment’s title, docket, tax question or reasoning. Those details must not be supplied by guessing among same-date decisions.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

No standalone tax ratio is established by this disposal

Dismissal as not pressed records the appeal’s endpoint. The order does not decide a particular deduction, exemption, assessment year or statutory interpretation. A practitioner relying on the underlying precedent must retrieve and read that judgment and check its applicability and later treatment separately.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

The order does not explain the underlying assessment outcome

The appeal’s withdrawal from contest does not reveal the exact relief in the tribunal or assessment order. The supplied sheet provides no monetary figures, costs award or continuing interim protection. Those matters remain outside this note’s source-supported scope.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

Caption reconciliation and the signed bench are kept separate

The matched court metadata identifies ITA 7/2000, CNRHPHC 010044502000 and 23 September 2008 as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivalik Hatcheries, with a matching disposal description. Its judge field differs from the signed sheet and is not used for the bench: the order itself names Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice, and Kuldip Singh. The metadata supplies party identity only; it does not replace the judicial text.

Source: PDF p.1 · Matched court metadata for caption · PDF p.1