Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii,Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S The Indian Hume Pipe Co.ltd. Mumbai 400 001 …
High Court
07 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii,Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S The Indian Hume Pipe Co.ltd. Mumbai 400 001 …
Date of order
07 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii,Mumbai 400 020 v. M/S The Indian Hume Pipe Co.ltd. Mumbai 400 001 …, the High Court (2016) 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2431 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II,Mumbai 400 020
… Appellant
v/s
M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Co.Ltd. Mumbai 400 001 … Respondent
Mr A.R. Malhotra with Mrs Padma Divakar for Appellant. Mr Sameer Dalal with Mr S.G. Lakhani for Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 07[th] JANUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2008-09.
2.Mr Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for direct Tax dated 10[th] December 2015. In particular, our attention is invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under :-
“3.Henceforth, appeals / SLPs shall not be filed in
cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :-
It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”
“10.This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts / Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn / not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
3.In the present case, the tax effect is Rs.14.13 lakhs as
mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Appeal Memo.
4.In view of the above, Mr Malhotra, learned counsel
appearing for the Revenue does not press the present appeal.
5.Accordingly, Appeal dismissed, as not pressed.
6.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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.