Applicant:-The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Respondent :-M/S. Surkan And Company, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur
High Court
27 Oct 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Applicant:-The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Respondent :-M/S. Surkan And Company, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur
Date of order
27 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Applicant:-The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Respondent :-M/S. Surkan And Company, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.64/1998
APPLICANT:-The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :-M/s. Surkan and Company, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for applicant][S/Shri L.S., K.P. Dewani, Advs. for respondent]
CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.DATED :- 27.10.2010
1.Learned Counsel for the revenue states that the tax effect involved in this reference is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
2.This Court in the case of C.I.T. ...Versus...Pithwa
Engineering Works, reported in (2005) 276 ITR 519 (Bom.)has held that the ceiling of monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would apply to the pending references. In view of this, the present reference is returned unanswered.
JUDGE
JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue