Case Law › High Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Upaan...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Upaan Resorts P. Ltd. Through: None

High Court 02 Jan 2017 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

02 Jan 2017

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Upaan Resorts P. Ltd. Through: None, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The revenue cannot prosecute this appeal; it is, therefore, dismissed as such.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 234B case law →

$~R-27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 652/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S UPAAN RESORTS P. LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % O R D E R02.01.2017 The question of law framed in this case pertains to the applicability of Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We notice, at the outset, that the tax effect in this case is far below the prescribed limit in terms of clause 10 of the Circular No.21/15 dated 10.12.2015; the amount involved is `14.83 lakhs, the tax effect of which would be less than `5 lakhs. The revenue cannot prosecute this appeal; it is, therefore, dismissed as such. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 02, 2017/vikas/ NAJMI WAZIRI, 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.