Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cit(A)-1, Patna v. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Saguna More, Baily Road, Patna
High Court
08 Jan 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cit(A)-1, Patna v. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Saguna More, Baily Road, Patna
Date of order
08 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cit(A)-1, Patna v. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Saguna More, Baily Road, Patna, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since substantial question of law of recurring nature is also not involved in this case, the appeal is dismissed.
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 PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.204 of 2010
======================================================
1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)-1, Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Saguna More, Baily Road, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance:For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr.S.C. Income Tax Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, Jr.S.C.Income Tax
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTAand
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)
3 08-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the appellant- Income Tax
Department.
From perusal of the order under appeal it is evident that the tax effect for the same is less than Rs.4,00,000/- which fact is also admitted by learned counsel for the Income Tax Department as even according to her the tax effect would be about Rs.3,24,000/- whereas from the order of the Tribunal it appears to be a much smaller amount.
Be that as it may, since the tax effect is admittedly less than Rs.4,00,000/- the appeal ought not to have been filed by the Income Tax Department in view of the relevant C.B.D.T. circular dated 24.10.2005 as amended by the circular dated 16.05.2007.
Since substantial question of law of recurring nature is also not involved in this case, the appeal is dismissed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
(Vikash Jain,J)
Chandran U
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.