M/S ANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — CWP/14234/2024

Case under Income Tax Act Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 31-May-2024

CNR: PHHC010771332024

e-Filing Number

30-05-2024

Filing Number

CWP/32062/2024

Filing Date

30-May-2024

Registration No

CWP/14234/2024

Registration Date

30-May-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Coram

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Bench Type

Double

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Income Tax Act Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S ANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. SHIVAM SHARMA

  2. 2.M/s Ane Industries Private Limited

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.M/s Ane Industries Private Limited

  3. 3.The Secretary Personnel

  4. 4.Excise And Taxation Commissioner

  5. 5.Income Tax Officer Tds

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal,ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to expeditiously decide ANE Industries' application for compounding offences for Assessment Year 2015-16, filed on 05.03.2026. The court accepted the petitioner's prayer with no objection from respondents and reserved the petitioner's right to challenge any prejudicial order passed by the Principal Commissioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14234/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to expeditiously decide ANE Industries' application for compounding offences for Assessment Year 2015-16, filed on 05.03.2026. The court accepted the petitioner's prayer with no objection from respondents and reserved the petitioner's right to challenge any prejudicial order passed by the Principal Commissioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case