Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai 40...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai 400 012 v. M/S Trident Impex, Mumbai 400 072

High Court 26 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai 400 012 v. M/S Trident Impex, Mumbai 400 072
Date of order
26 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai 400 012 v. M/S Trident Impex, Mumbai 400 072, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 2.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3018 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-20,Mumbai 400 012 v/sM/s Trident Impex, Mumbai 400 072 … Appellant … Respondent Mrs S.V. Bharucha for Appellant. Ms Aarti Sathe with Mr Kalpesh Juralkar for Respondent. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 26[th] FEBRUARY, 2016 P.C.:- 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2003-04. Mrs Bharucha, learned counsel for the Revenue states that the tax effect in the present Appeal as indicated in para 9 of the Appeal Memos is Rs.7.47 lakhs. She further states that in view of the Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No.21/15 dated 10[th ]December 2015, the tax effect being less than the threshold limit of Rs.20 lakhs provided therein for challenging an order of the Tribunal before this Court, she does not press the present Appeal. 2.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Refund of Court fees as per Rules. (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan