The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 & Anr. v. M/s Nalpak Restaurants

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue sought to quash the ITAT order of 19 May 2023 in M. P.93/Bang/2023, arising from ITA 10/Bang/2022. Nalpak Restaurants opposed the petition under Articles 226 and 227.

Source: PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Court held that the issue was directly covered by DCIT v. Brush Tech India, W. P.27089/2023, decided 30 July 2025. The short order does not reproduce that judgment’s reasoning or identify the underlying tax provision.

Source: PDF p.2, paras 2–3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits by applying the coordinate-bench decision.

Source: PDF pp.2–3, para 4

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s challenge failed; the 19 May 2023 Tribunal order was not quashed.

Source: PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Identify what survived the challenge

The immediate subject was the Tribunal’s miscellaneous-petition order, not a directly examined assessment. Dismissal leaves that order undisturbed. It does not, by itself, establish the precise relief earlier granted by the Tribunal or the amount of any deduction.

Source: PDF pp.1–3

The precedent supplies the missing reasoning

Brush Tech India is the express basis of decision, but its ratio is not restated here. Applying Nalpak to another case requires comparing that judgment and the underlying Tribunal orders. The present source alone cannot support a detailed proposition about employee contributions or the scope of rectification.

Source: PDF p.2, para3

Keep unknown details genuinely unknown

No assessment year, tax amount or substantive statutory section is stated. Assigning those details from a similar taxpayer dispute would obscure the limited information available. The reliable identifiers are W. P.23902/2023, the Tribunal docket and the cited coordinate-bench decision.

Source: PDF pp.1–3