M/S PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORP LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR vs C.I.T. CHANDIGARH COMMISSIONER — SLP(C) No. 9708/2012

Status: Pending.

Pending

CNR: SCIN010010102012

Filing Date

06-Jan-2012

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 9708/2012

Diary Number

1010/2012

Order Date

06-Jan-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Last updated 09-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORP LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.C.I.T. CHANDIGARH COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. 06-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  2. 06-Jan-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 11-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 11-Nov-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 11-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 09-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 09-Sep-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 09-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 09-Aug-2016
  11. 09-Aug-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  12. 09-Aug-2016
  13. 02-Aug-2016
  14. 02-Aug-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  15. 02-Aug-2016
  16. 08-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 08-Jul-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 08-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 13-Apr-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 13-Apr-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 13-Apr-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 19-Feb-2016
  23. 19-Feb-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  24. 19-Feb-2016
  25. 18-Feb-2014
  26. 18-Nov-2013
  27. 07-Mar-2013
  28. 06-Jan-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 9708/2012

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SLP(C) No. 9708/2012 On 06/01/2017, the Supreme Court Registrar heard the case involving Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd against the Commissioner of Income Tax. For SLP(C) No. 9708/2012 specifically, the Court noted that the sole respondent failed to file a counter-affidavit despite being granted a final opportunity and declined any further extension. The Registry was directed to process all related matters for listing before the Court as per established rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case