Case Law › High Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)- 2, New...

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)- 2, New Delhi v. M/S Vipul Medcorp Tpa Pvt. Ltd

High Court 08 Nov 2024 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

08 Nov 2024

Assessment year(s)

2009-10

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)- 2, New Delhi v. M/S Vipul Medcorp Tpa Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on account of low taxeffect.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 21/2020 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)- 2, NEW DELHI .....AppellantThrough:MrIndrujSinghRai,SSC,MrSanjeev Menon and Mr Rahul Singh,JSCs and Mr Anmol Jagga, Advocate. versus M/S VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD. .....RespondentThrough:Mr Ved Jain, Mr Nishay Kantoor, MsSoniaDodejaandMrDivyansh,Advocates. % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R 08.11.2024 1.The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated04.09.2018 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITANo.4398/Del./2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2.At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue statesthat the tax effect involved in the present appeal is below the threshold limitof ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024 and is not covered by any exceptions as set out in the circular. 3.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on account of low taxeffect. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 08, 2024M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any

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.