Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and another

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak brought CWP 11754/1988 against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and another respondent. The supplied one-page order identifies no assessment year, taxpayer name for the second respondent, disputed amount or substantive tax provision.

Source: PDF p.1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court adopted the detailed reasons in its separate same-day order in CWP 11756/1988, bearing the same abbreviated cause title. Those reasons are not reproduced in this PDF.

Source: PDF p.1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

CWP 11754/1988 was dismissed on 16 March 2007 for the reasons stated in the companion order.

Source: PDF p.1

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s writ petition was dismissed. The source confirms the disposal but does not itself establish the substantive issue or the reasoning incorporated from CWP 11756/1988.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

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

Treat incorporation as a source dependency

This order deliberately locates its reasons in a separate judgment. A reliable account can state the dismissal and exact companion docket, but a detailed tax proposition requires that companion source to be read. No tax provision, assessment year or monetary consequence can be reconstructed merely from the Commissioner and Tribunal appearing as parties.

Source: PDF p.1

The two writ numbers are distinct judicial records

CWP 11754/1988 is the present disposal; CWP 11756/1988 supplies the adopted reasons. Matching abbreviated party names and decision date does not make them duplicate cases. Retaining the separate docket and its source link preserves the procedural history without claiming to have identified the unnamed second respondent.

Source: PDF p.1

Limit the reported result to the authenticated disposition

The writ was dismissed, not remanded or withdrawn. The one-page text does not specify a refund, penalty cancellation or assessment exemption. Those consequences should remain unreported unless established by the companion judgment or relevant lower orders. The note therefore records a narrow source-supported result.

Source: PDF p.1